Filed Date: Sept. 6, 2006
Closed Date: Jan. 5, 2007
Clearinghouse coding complete
On September 6, 2006, Plaintiffs consisting of (i) one African-American woman who sought to become a candidate on the ballot for the Democratic Party nomination for the public office of Judge of the Civil Court of the City of New York from the 7th Municipal District, New York County, Vacancy #13 for the primary election held on September 12, 2006 and for the general election held in November 2006, and (ii) six Latino-Americans who are registered Democrat Party voters in the 7th Municipal District for the City of New York and voters and supporters of (i), filed a class action suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Plaintiff shall refer to (i), while Plaintiffs shall refer to (i) and (ii) together. Plaintiffs allege that their class includes thousands of people who signed the designating petition and thousands of Democratic Party voters of the 7th Municipal District of the City of New York and such class members’ First and Fourteenth Amendment Rights pursuant to the United States Constitution had been violated. Defendants are the New York City Board of Elections and the State of New York. The case was assigned to the Honorable Naomi Reice Buchwald and Magistrate Judge James C. Francis.
Specifically, Plaintiffs alleged that on July 11, 2006, Plaintiff timely filed designating petitions for the public office of Judge of the Civil Court of the City of New York from the 7th Municipal District, New York County, Vacancy #13, and such petition was approved by Defendants to place Plaintiff on the ballot New York State Election Law §6-154 sets a deadline for the filing of a challenge of a designating petition of the like put forth by the plaintiff of three (3) days. However, objections were raised to Plaintiff’s petition on July 17, 2006, which was three (3) days after the deadline. Plaintiffs argued that despite these objections being untimely, Defendants arbitrarily and capriciously violated New York State election law and Defendants’ own rules by accepting the untimely challenges and violated the First and Fourteenth Amendment by removing Plaintiff’s name from the ballot because of her race. Additionally, Plaintiffs requested an injunction to enjoin Defendants from excluding Plaintiff from the ballot for 13 for the primary election held on September 12, 2006, and for the general election held in November 2006.
Originally, Plaintiff petitioned the Supreme Court of the State of New York to restore Plaintiff’s name on the ballot. However, on August 9, 2006, the Supreme Court of the State of New York, rejected the petition purportedly because her petition to the court was not verified.
On September 10, 2006, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Summary Judgment and Injunctive Relief. However, the Court did not filed Plaintiffs motion compelling and on September 11, 2006, the Court filed an Order to Show Cause for the Preliminary Injunction, set oral argument for Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction, and rejected the motion for summary judgement, finding that it was filed prematurely.
On September 21, 2006, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. Defendant argued that the Court lacks jurisdiction because Defendant was improperly served by Plaintiff. Specifically, Defendant maintains that it was served a copy of the complaint without an accompanying summons, as required by Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
On September 21, 2006, the individual that filed the objection to Plaintiff’s petition filed a Motion to Intervene, which was granted by the Court.
On October 4, 2006, the Court issued an order dismissing complaint. The Court noted that on July 13, 2006, another petition that contained the names of two hundred eighteen (218) supporters was filed, and Intervenor filed the objection to Plaintiff’s two business days after that, which was within the three (3) day deadline. On July 25, 2006, the New York City Board of Elections determined that the objection was timely filed.
Defendant argues that the Court lacks jurisdiction over the Board because they were improperly served by Plaintiff. Specifically, the Board maintains that it was served a copy of the complaint without an accompanying summons, as required by Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and that a summons (without a complaint) was not served until two days ago. Plaintiff’s counsel argued that they served a copy of the summons with the original complaint. The Court found that without any testimonial or affidavit evidence submitted by Defendant, there was sufficient proof of service of a summons with a complaint.
Regarding Plaintiff’s request for a Preliminary Injunction, the Court determined that the criterion for a heightened standard applies because the relief sought would alter the status quo by declaring Plaintiff eligible for placement on the November general election ballot where the Board of Elections had made the determination that she was ineligible.
Regarding New York State New York State Election Law §6-154, the Court found that the Intervenor’s reliance on the later filed petition to be reasonable and the Board’s choice to accept Intervenor’s objections as consistent with state law. Resultantly, the Court ruled that Plaintiff’s allegations were insufficient to establish a clear and or substantial showing of a likelihood of success on the merits and the request for a preliminary injunction was denied. Moreover, having found no violation of state law, there are no viable federal claims to support federal jurisdiction, and therefore the complaint was dismissed.
Plaintiff was not satisfied with this outcome and on October 6, 2006, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal. However, on January 5, 2007, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the transcript of record and issued a judgment that the Court’s order was affirmed.
Summary Authors
Deidre Fragapane (11/9/2024)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/12215029/parties/rivera-powell-v-new-york-city-board-of-elections/
Buchwald, Naomi Reice (New York)
Mitchell, Steven T. (New York)
Kitzinger, Stephen Edward (New York)
Greig, Arthur Williams (New York)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/12215029/rivera-powell-v-new-york-city-board-of-elections/
Last updated Aug. 10, 2025, 10:48 p.m.
State / Territory: New York
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Law Firm Antiracism Alliance (LFAA) project
Key Dates
Filing Date: Sept. 6, 2006
Closing Date: Jan. 5, 2007
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
An African-American woman who wanted to be on the ballot for a judicial position and six Latino-Americans who were registered Democrats.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: Yes
Class Action Outcome: Granted
Defendants
New York City Board of Elections (New York City), City
Defendant Type(s):
Facility Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Constitutional Clause(s):
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Defendant
Nature of Relief:
Source of Relief:
Issues
Discrimination Basis: