Case: Di Genova-Chang v. Ducey

This case is about the voting procedures in Arizona in light of COVID-19. The plaintiff, an Arizona resident and candidate for local office, filed this case in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona in forma pauperis on March 31, 2020, against the Governor of Arizona, the Pima County Department of Elections, and the Pima County Recorder’s Office. Citing multiple federal laws, including the Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act, and the Help America Vote Act, the plaintiff argued that the Governor unlawfully refused to delay the March 2020 Arizona primary elections and unlawfully forced election officials, state employees, and candidates to continue working and campaigning in person. The plaintiff also argued that the Pima County Department of Elections and the Pima County Recorder’s Office unlawfully required candidates to file petitions and review signatures in person. The plaintiff contended that the in-person voting, campaigning, and other activities presented a grave public health risk. As relief, the plaintiff requested that the Office of the Governor pay damages amounting to the Governor’s salary plus the amount of all medical costs for Arizona residents who contract COVID-19, in addition to punitive damages for incompetence and willful neglect. The plaintiff also requested that the results of the Arizona primaries be declared null and void. The case was assigned to Judge Rosemary Marquez.

On May 18, 2020, the court granted the plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis. 2020 WL 6555236. The court also struck the plaintiff’s original complaint from the record due to its being unsigned and thus not compliant with Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court gave the plaintiff 30 days to file a signed complaint and stated that the action would otherwise be dismissed. The action was dismissed on July 7, 2020, after the plaintiff failed to file a signed complaint within the 30-day period.

On February 17, 2021, the plaintiff filed a motion for judicial relief. The motion included a letter and a copy of the plaintiff’s original complaint with handwritten changes. The plaintiff stated that the motion was a continuation of her complaint. The motion added the Trump Administration as an additional defendant, alleged violations of additional federal statutes, and requested that the court render Arizona Governor Ducey, President Trump, and Vice President Pence ineligible to run for future office on the basis of their alleged crimes against humanity.

On April 12, 2021, the court denied the plaintiff’s motion for relief. 2021 WL 1376082. The court stated that, since the case was closed, the plaintiff could not be permitted to file an amended complaint without first establishing grounds to reopen the case. While the court conceded that the motion could be recharacterized as a motion for reconsideration, a motion for relief from a judgment, or a motion to alter or amend a judgment, that the motion would still be denied regardless of how the court decided to characterize the motion. The court found that the plaintiff failed to move for reconsideration within 14 days of its May 18 order or show good cause for additional delay, contrary to the court’s local rules. In addition, per local rules, a motion for reconsideration is generally denied absent a showing of manifest error or a showing of new facts or legal authority, which the court found that plaintiff failed to establish here. The court also found that the plaintiff had failed to identify any permissible grounds for relief from a judgment or order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60. Lastly, the court stated that the motion also failed as a motion to alter or amend the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), since the motion was not filed within 28 days from the entry of judgment and the plaintiff failed to present newly discovered evidence, show clear error by the court, or show an intervening change in the controlling law.

The case is now closed.