Filed Date: Oct. 14, 2020
Closed Date: Aug. 27, 2021
Clearinghouse coding complete
This is of one of several cases filed by the same Plaintiff primarily challenging the legality of unsolicited absentee voter applications in Michigan. Plaintiff sought to invalidate votes casted by Michigan voters who applied to vote by absentee ballot using unsolicited absentee voter applications that were sent to every voter in Michigan for the 2020 general election. Plaintiff, a resident of Highland Park, an enclave of Detroit, alleged that he had been denied equal protection because the Highland Park City Clerk did not mail him an unsolicited absentee voter application to vote by absentee ballot, whereas other Detroit voters were sent such applications. (Plaintiff omitted from his complaint the fact he was mailed an unsolicited absentee voter application by the Michigan Department of Elections, albeit not by the Highland Park City Clerk). Plaintiff also alleged that the unsolicited absentee voter applications sent to Detroit voters were unlawful (alleging that Defendants met privately and secretly and conspired to develop a plan for the unlawful mass mailing of absentee ballot absentee voter applications) and that the unsolicited absentee voter applications sent to voters in Detroit (a city Plaintiff characterized as “predominantly democratic”) diluted Plaintiff’s vote for a particular Republican candidate in the Michigan Supreme Court. Plaintiff further sought declaratory judgements under state law.
Plaintiff filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan (Southern Division) on October 14, 2020. Defendants included Michigan Secretary of State, Detroit City Clerk, and Detroit Department of Election. Plaintiff was represented by private counsel. Plaintiffs cited 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and sought to redress the deprivation of rights secured by the United States Constitution. The case was assigned to Judge Paul Maloney.
The Complaint included four counts. Count I stated that Plaintiff had been denied equal protection of law because the Highland Park City Clerk did not mail him an unsolicited absentee voter application, whereas other Detroit voters were sent unsolicited absentee voter applications. Count II stated that the unsolicited absentee voter applications sent to Detroit voters were unlawful (alleging that Defendants met privately and secretly and conspired to develop a plan for the unlawful mass mailing of absentee ballot absentee voter applications) and that the unsolicited absentee voter applications sent to voters in Detroit diluted Plaintiff’s vote for a particular Republican candidate in the Michigan Supreme Court. Count III sought declaratory judgement under Michigan state law that absentee ballots procured in Detroit using the unsolicited absentee voter applications should not be counted. Count IV sought declaratory judgement under Michigan state law that Public Act 177 of 2020—an act that allowed city and township clerks with populations of 25,000 residents or more to begin processing returned absentee ballots a day before the November 3, 2020 general election—was not properly enacted in accordance with Michigan Constitution. Plaintiff filed an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction with respect to Count I as well as an emergency motion for partial summary judgment with respect to Count IV.
The Court denied both emergency motions on October 30, 2020. The Court denied the motion for Count I for procedural reasons, and the Court also found that Plaintiff had not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits. The Court stated that (1) Plaintiff provided no basis for personal knowledge for his allegations that Defendants met privately and secretly and conspired to develop a plan for the unlawful mass mailing of absentee ballot absentee voter applications—an assertion that was contrary to his allocations made in another lawsuit Plaintiff filed in a state court, (2) Plaintiff’s allegations did not amount to illegal conduct, and (3) Plaintiff likely had not stated a claim because while Plaintiff might not have received an absentee ballot absentee voter application from Highland Park, such failure was not caused by the actions of Defendants. The Court denied the motion for Count IV because (1) it would foreclose Defendants 'opportunity for a hearing, (2) Plaintiff’s alleged injury did not arise from the acts of Defendants, and (3) the Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this state law claim because the operative facts giving rise to the first three counts (the mailing of unsolicited absentee ballot applications) and the operative facts giving rise to the fourth count (early processing of absentee ballots) were distinct.
Defendants subsequently filed a motion to dismiss under rule 12(b)(6) on November 18, 2020. For Count I, Defendants argued that Plaintiff omitted from his complaint the fact Plaintiff was mailed an unsolicited absentee voter application by the Michigan Department of Elections, and since every voter in Michigan (except those on the permanent list to vote absentee) was mailed an unsolicited absentee voter application, it was “impossible to discern an equal protection violation.” For Count II, Defendants argued that there would be no dilution because even if every single vote casted in Detroit for the Supreme Court race were disregarded, the candidate Plaintiff voted for would still lose the election, and thus, Plaintiff’s dilution claim lacked causation, injury, and damages. For Count III, Defendants stated that Detroit had already completed counting/tally of votes, and thus the relief sought was moot. Defendants also urged the Court to decline exercising supplemental jurisdiction over Count III if the Court dismissed Counts I and II.
On December 9, 2020, Plaintiff amended the Complaint in response and added Highland Park City Clerk as a co-defendant. Amended Count I alleged that Defendants violated Plaintiff’s right to equal protection because Defendants failed to provide funds to all local clerks to pay for costs associated with mass mailing unsolicited absentee voter applications. Amended Count II alleged that Defendants violated Plaintiff’s procedural due process rights by denying his request for post-election audits with respect to the unsolicited absentee voter applications. Amended Count III alleged that Defendants violated his equal rights protection by treating his request for post-election audits differently than other similar requests. Amended Count IV alleged that Defendants violated his equal protection rights by treating his request for the Secretary of State to refer a particular prosecutor to the Attorney General for prosecution differently than other similar requests. Amended Count V alleged that Defendant Winfrey (Detroit City Clerk) violated Plaintiff’s procedural due process rights by denying his right to witness and observe tallying of votes in voting precincts after polls closed. Amended Count VI alleged that Defendant Green (Highland Park City Clerk) violated Plaintiff’s procedural due process rights by denying his right to witness and observe tallying of votes in voting precincts after polls closed on election night.
Plaintiff subsequently stipulated to the dismissal of Amended Counts I, II, III, IV, and VI, with Amended Count V being the only claim pending before the Court. The Court then dismissed Amended Count V for failing to allege sufficient facts to state a claim. The Court explained that in the Sixth Circuit, “plaintiffs can establish a claim for violation of procedural due process either by showing (1) they were deprived of a liberty or property as the result of established state procedures that themselves violate due process or (2) the defendants deprived the plaintiffs of a liberty or property interest through a random and unauthorized act and that the available state remedies would not adequately compensate for the loss.” The Court stated that even if Plaintiff’s claim fell under the second category of cases, the Complaint was “utterly silent as to the inadequacy of the [state] remedy,” the lack of which was fatal. The Court therefore dismissed the claim and terminated the action.
Summary Authors
Miao Liu (12/19/2023)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/18573050/parties/davis-v-benson/
Maloney, Paul Lewis (Michigan)
Paterson, Andrew A. (Michigan)
Noseda, James D. (Michigan)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/18573050/davis-v-benson/
Last updated June 13, 2025, 11:16 p.m.