Filed Date: Nov. 10, 2020
Closed Date: Dec. 17, 2021
Clearinghouse coding complete
On November 10, 2020, an Alabama resident (“Plaintiff”) filed this lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, Northern Division. The Plaintiff sued Alabama Secretary of State John H. Merrill, Alabama Attorney General Steven T. Marshall, Alabama Governor Kay Ivey, and Montgomery County Probate Judge J.C. Love, III (collectively “Defendants”) under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The pro se Plaintiff alleged that his civil rights were violated by Defendants when his name was left off the United States presidential ballot in November 2020. As such, the Plaintiff sought an injunction to overturn the 2020 United States Presidential election results. Along with his complaint, the Plaintiff also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, which was not opposed by Defendants, and was subsequently granted. The case was assigned to District Judge Myron H. Thompson and Magistrate Judge Kelly F. Pate. Ultimately, the case was dismissed without prejudice for failure to plead facts justifying relief after opportunity to amend.
The Plaintiff filed a motion on December 1, 2020, to participate in the pro se party assistance program and filed another motion on December 15, 2020, to serve lawsuit and summons on named defendants. On December 29, 2020, the court evaluated both of the Plaintiff’s motions. The court denied the motion to serve lawsuit and summons on named defendants and denied the motion to participate in the pro se party assistance program as the program is not available to every litigant who requests it. Instead, the purpose of the program is to obtain assistance drafting a complaint the court can understand. The court determined that such a referral was unnecessary in this case because the court understood the allegations in Plaintiff’s complaint.
On April 27, 2021, the court entered an order consolidating the two similar civil actions currently filed by Plaintiff seeking relief from the same Defendants. On the same day, Judge Pate addressed: (1) Defendants Merrill and Ivey’s motion to dismiss the complaint or, in the alternative, for a more definite statement; (2) Plaintiff’s motion to amend complaint; and (3) Plaintiff’s motion to overturn the election results. As to the first and second motions, the court pointed to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), which states that a complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” The court recognized that when considering a pro se litigant’s allegations, a court shall hold him to a more lenient standard than those of an attorney, however, a pro se litigant is still subject to the relevant laws and rules of court. The court determined that the complaints filed by Plaintiff in these consolidated cases, as well as his proposed amended complaint, failed to satisfy the relevant Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and as such, the Plaintiff was required to file an amended complaint before the lawsuit could proceed. The Court found the complaint a “shotgun pleading” that failed to allege specific facts justifying relief, and containing only conclusory statements. The Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to amend complaint to the extent that Plaintiff was permitted to file an amended complaint by May 14, 2021 that cured the deficiencies discussed in the order. Additionally, the court also denied Plaintiff’s motion to overturn election results and Defendants’ motion to dismiss. The court granted Defendants’ motion for more definite statement to the extent that Plaintiff was required to file an amended compliant complaint.
Plaintiff filed a motion on May 17, 2021 for appointment of counsel. On May 19, 2021, the court denied Plaintiff’s motion, stating that a plaintiff in a civil case lacks a constitutional right to counsel. Although an indigent plaintiff may be appointed counsel under 38 U.S.C. 1915(e)(1), the court retains broad discretion in making that decision and is justified only by exceptional circumstances, such as the existence of facts and legal issues so novel or complex that a trained practitioner is required.The court determined that this case was not so novel or complex that an attorney was required for Plaintiff to present the merits of his claims.
On May 27, 2021, the magistrate judge entered a recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. 2021 WL 2893945. In this recommendation, the magistrate judge recounted that the court provided Plaintiff with specific instructions as to filing the amended complaint and warned Plaintiff that his failure to file an amended complaint would result in a recommendation that this case be dismissed. Seeing as two weeks had passed since the Court’s deadline, and the Plaintiff had not filed an amended complaint as the Court ordered, the report recommended that the case be dismissed without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to file an amended complaint as ordered by the Court. The recommendation stated that parties may file an objection to the recommendation on or before June 10, 2021 but failure to file a written objection would bar a party from a de novo determination by the district court and waive the right of the party to challenge on appeal the district court’s order. No objections were filed against the recommendation before June 11, 2021.
On June 11, 2021, the district judge adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation and the consolidated lawsuits were dismissed without prejudice for the Plaintiff’s failure to file an amended complaint as ordered. 2021 WL 2893944. The clerk of the court was directed to enter this document on the civil docket as a final judgment and the consolidated cases were closed. On June 21, 2021, Plaintiff filed a motion to stay judgment, however, that same day, an order was entered denying Plaintiff’s motion to stay.
On June 28, 2021, Plaintiff filed an appeal of the May 27, 2021 dismissal order with the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Along with his motion to proceed on appeal, the Plaintiff also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, which was subsequently granted on October 25, 2021. Then, on December 17, 2021, Plaintiff’s appeal was dismissed by Clerk of Court for want of prosecution because the Plaintiff had failed to file an appellant’s brief within the time fixed by the rules.
On January 24, 2023, Plaintiff filed a similar complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, Northern Division and against the same Defendants discussed above. In this complaint, Plaintiff sought an injunction placing him “on the ballot for the general election for 2022” and to be relieved of the signature-collection requirement due to COVID-19. On February 21, 2021, District Judge Myron H. Thompson entered an opinion that the Plaintiff’s case be dismissed without prejudice as moot.
The docket has not been updated since this order, and the case is presumed closed.
Summary Authors
Alli Counton (12/14/2023)
Sanders v. Merrill, Middle District of Alabama (2021)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/18635282/parties/sanders-v-merrill-maglead/
Thompson, Myron Herbert (Alabama)
Sanders, Jarmal Jabbar (Alabama)
Messick, Misty Shawn (Alabama)
Sinclair, Winfield James (Alabama)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/18635282/sanders-v-merrill-maglead/
Last updated Aug. 9, 2025, 10:26 p.m.
State / Territory: Alabama
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Law Firm Antiracism Alliance (LFAA) project
Key Dates
Filing Date: Nov. 10, 2020
Closing Date: Dec. 17, 2021
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
A Montgomery, Alabama resident whose name was left off the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election ballot.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: Yes
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
City of Montgomery, Alabama (Montgomery), City
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Voting Rights Act, unspecified, 52 U.S.C. § 10301 et seq (previously 42 U.S.C § 1973 et seq.)
Constitutional Clause(s):
Due Process: Substantive Due Process
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: None Yet / None
Nature of Relief:
Source of Relief:
Issues
Voting: