Case: Dyer v. Harris

COMPLAINT against JOSEPH R BIDEN, JR, DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE, JOHN DOES, KAMALA DEVI HARRIS, MAINE SECRETARY OF STATE, MAINE STATE DEMOCRATIC COMMITTEE PAYMENT OF FILING FEE DUE WITHIN 48 HOURS. IF FILING FEE IS BEING PAID WITH A CREDIT CARD COUNSEL ARE INSTRUCTED TO LOGIN TO CMECF AND DOCKET Case Opening Filing Fee Paid FOUND IN THE Complaints and Other Initiating Documents CATEGORY. CHECK PAYMENTS DUE WITHIN 48 HOURS., filed by ROBERT R DYER. (Service of Process Deadline 4/5/2021) Fee due by 1/6/2021.(bfa) (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/5/2021: # 1 envelope) (bfa). (Entered: 01/05/2021)

1 envelope

View on RECAP

CIVIL COVER SHEET. (bfa) (Entered: 01/05/2021)

NOTICE of Pro Se Appearance form filed by ROBERT R DYER (bfa) (Entered: 01/05/2021)

Filing Fee Received from ROBERT R DYER: Amount Paid: $402. Receipt Number: 221000404. Method of Payment: check. Purpose of Payment: civil filing fee. Date Paid: 1/4/2021 re 1 Complaint. (bfa)

LETTER from Clerks Office providing Information for Pro Se Parties handout. (bfa) (Entered: 01/05/2021)

AMENDED COMPLAINT filed by ROBERT R DYER against JOSEPH R BIDEN, JR, DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE, JOHN DOES, KAMALA DEVI HARRIS, MAINE SECRETARY OF STATE, MAINE STATE DEMOCRATIC COMMITTEE, MICHAEL R PENCE. (Service of Process Deadline 4/5/2021)(jwr) (Entered: 01/05/2021)

MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order, MOTION for Emergency Ex-Parte Hearing filed by ROBERT R DYER (mnd) (Entered: 01/07/2021)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by ROBERT R DYER re 5 Amended Complaint (mnd) (Entered: 01/07/2021)

ORDER re 6 Motion for TRO and Motion for Emergency Ex-Parte Hearing. The Plaintiff filed a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Request for Emergency Ex-Parte Hearing on January 6, 2021 (received via email by the Clerk's Office at 11:59 p.m. on January 6, 2021). The motion seeks an order restraining Defendant Vice President Michael R. Pence from certifying the electoral votes from the presidential election. The electoral votes were certified at approximately 3:40 a.m. on January 7, 2021. Accordingly, the Plaintiff's requests for a temporary restraining order and emergency ex-parte hearing are DENIED as moot. By JUDGE NANCY TORRESEN. (mnd) (Entered: 01/07/2021)

Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief 1 AND Order on Motion for TRO

MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order, MOTION for Emergency Ex-Parte Hearing filed by ROBERT R DYER (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - Birth Certificate of Kamala Harris, # 2 Exhibit 2 - The Jamaica Constitution Order in Council 1962, # 3 Certificate of Service)(mnd) (Entered: 01/12/2021)

1 Exhibit 1 - Birth Certificate of Kamala Harris

View on PACER

2 Exhibit 2 - The Jamaica Constitution Order in Council 1962

View on PACER

3 Certificate of Service

View on RECAP

ORDER denying 9 Motion for TRO; denying 9 Motion for Emergency Ex-Parte Hearing. The Plaintiff has not demonstrated service of the Complaint in accordance with Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and there is no written certification justifying why the Plaintiff is entitled to injunctive relief without notice to the Defendants as required by Rule 65(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Particularly given the magnitude of the requested relief, and the length of time that the Plaintiff delayed in bringing this case and motion for TRO, the Court sees no reason why relief should be granted before affording the Defendants an opportunity to be heard. Further, federal courts have jurisdiction over a case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution only if the plaintiff has standing to sue. See Neal v. Harris, No. 1:20CV840, 2020 WL 6702145, at *3 (S.D. Ohio Nov. 13, 2020). If the Plaintiff wishes to proceed he is ordered to demonstrate that he has served the Defendants with the Complaint, that he has provided notice of the TRO, and that he has standing to pursue his claims. By JUDGE NANCY TORRESEN. (mnd) (Entered: 01/13/2021)

Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief 1 AND Order on Motion for TRO

MOTION for Issuance of Summonses by ROBERT R DYER (mnd) (Entered: 01/15/2021)

ORDER dismissing 11 Motion for Issuance of Summonses. The Clerk can issue a summons without a court order. The motion, therefore, is unnecessary. As Plaintiff evidently intends to serve Defendants and provide notice of his request for injunctive relief as required by the Court's January 13, 2021, Order (ECF No. 10), Plaintiff is reminded that he must also demonstrate that he has standing to assert his claims. If Plaintiff intends to seek a temporary restraining order with notice to the defendants prior to January 20, 2021, as referenced in his motion for injunctive relief (ECF No. 9), Plaintiff must show cause in writing by 12 p.m. (noon) on January 19, 2021. If Plaintiff fails to demonstrate that he has standing, his request for injunctive relief could be denied and his complaint could be dismissed. By JUDGE NANCY TORRESEN. (mnd) (Entered: 01/15/2021)

Summons Issued as to JOSEPH R BIDEN, JR, DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE, KAMALA DEVI HARRIS, MAINE SECRETARY OF STATE, MAINE STATE DEMOCRATIC COMMITTEE & MICHAEL R PENCE. Counsel shall print the embossed summons and effect service in the manner in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P.4. Note-If you are using Version 6 of Adobe Acrobat, be sure the PRINT WHAT field is set to DOCUMENTS AND COMMENTS (Click File, then Print to check this setting). First Attached Document: Harris Summons (Attachments: # 1 Biden Summons, # 2 Pence Summons, # 3 DNC Summons, # 4 Maine Democratic State Committee Summons, # 5 Secretary of State Summons)(mnd) (Entered: 01/15/2021)

Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief 1

MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order, MOTION for Emergency Ex-Parte Hearing filed by ROBERT R DYER. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - Birth Certificate of Kamala Harris, # 2 Exhibit 2- The Jamaica Constitution Order in Council 1962, # 3 Certificate of Service)(mnd) (Entered: 01/19/2021)

1 Exhibit 1 - Birth Certificate of Kamala Harris

View on PACER

2 Exhibit 2- The Jamaica Constitution Order in Council 1962

View on PACER

3 Certificate of Service

View on PACER

SUMMONS Returned Executed by ROBERT R DYER. KAMALA DEVI HARRIS served on 1/15/2021. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(mnd) (Entered: 01/19/2021)

Summons Returned Unexecuted as to JOSEPH R BIDEN, JR (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(mnd) (Entered: 01/19/2021)

SUMMONS Returned Executed by ROBERT R DYER. MICHAEL R PENCE served on 1/15/2021. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(mnd) (Entered: 01/19/2021)

RETURN OF SERVICE FOR MAINE DEMOCRATIC STATE COMMITTEE filed by ROBERT R DYER. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(mnd) (Entered: 01/19/2021)

RETURN OF SERVICE FOR SECRETARY OF STATE OF MAINE filed by ROBERT R DYER. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(mnd) (Entered: 01/19/2021)

RETURN OF SERVICE FOR DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE filed by ROBERT R DYER. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(mnd) (Entered: 01/19/2021)

ORDER on 14 Motion for TRO; 14 Motion for Emergency Ex Parte Hearing. In my January 13, 2021 order denying the Plaintiff's earlier motion for a TRO (ECF No. 10), I instructed the Plaintiff to do three things to proceed in this Court: (1) demonstrate proper service of the summons and complaint; (2) provide the required Rule 65 written certification as to what attempts he made to give notice on the requested TRO to the Defendants and why notice should not be required; and (3) show that the Plaintiff has standing to bring his claims. In response, the Plaintiff has filed a Third Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Request for Emergency Ex-Parte Hearing (ECF No. 14) (Third TRO Motion) and provided various documents related to service (ECF No. 15). As to the Plaintiff's efforts to meet the service and notice provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 65, based on the documents that the Plaintiff has provided to the Court, those requirements do not appear to be met as to all Defendants. I sidestep those issues however, because I find that the Plaintiff lacks standing and the case therefore must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Plaintiff states that his standing arose on November 3, 2020, when he was first harmed when he was presented with a federal election ballot containing an Unconstitutionally Qualified Democratic Party Slate for the President of the United States. Third TRO Mot. 3. The Plaintiff claims that he was directly harmed, as he could not possibly cast a vote for the Democratic Party Slate that he knew was invalid and unconstitutionally qualified to hold the offices of President and Vice-President. Third TRO Mot. 8. The Plaintiff claims that [t]he failure of the Democratic party organization and candidates to present a fully qualified Presidential Party Slate injured the Plaintiff's ability to vote effectively in the election and that [t]he votes and subsequent tabulation of ballots/votes for an invalid and unconstitutionally qualified Democratic party Slate, impacted the Plaintiff directly as a voter too. Third TRO Mot. 8. Constitutional standing requires injury in fact, causation, and redressability, and the alleged injury must be both concrete and particularized and actual or imminent. Hochendoner v. Genzyme Corp., 823 F.3d 724, 731 (1st Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted). [A] plaintiff raising only a generally available grievance about governmentclaiming only harm to his and every citizens interest in proper application of the Constitution and laws, and seeking relief that no more directly and tangibly benefits him than it does the public at largedoes not state an Article III case or controversy. Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 57374 (1992). Here, the Plaintiff's asserted injuries all derive from his status as a voter. This is insufficient to confer standing. Cf. Becker v. Fed. Election Commn, 230 F.3d 381, 38890 (1st Cir. 2000) (finding Ralph Nader had standing to contest Federal Election Commission regulations on presidential debates but that voter plaintiffs lacked standing). Numerous courts to have addressed this precise issue have concluded that plaintiffs asserting injuries common to all voters lack standing. See, e.g., Neal v. Harris, Case No. 1:20cv840, 2020 WL 6702145, at *3 (S.D. Ohio Nov. 13, 2020) (dismissing claim that Kamala Harris was ineligible to become Vice President because she is not a natural born citizen where plaintiff failed to demonstrate particularized injury); Laity v. Harris, Case No. 1:20-cv-02511-EGS (D.D.C. Nov. 10, 2020) (same); see also Kerchner v. Obama, 612 F.3d 204, 208 (3d Cir. 2010) (finding that plaintiffs claims that defendant was not legitimate candidate fall squarely into the category of generalized grievances that are most appropriately handled by the legislative branch (internal quotation marks omitted)); Sibley v. Obama, 866 F. Supp. 2d 17, 20 (D.D.C. 2012); (A public officials title to office is an injury particularized to an individual only if that individual... sought the office at the same time as the current officeholder.); Hollander v. McCain, 566 F. Supp. 2d 63, 6871 (D.N.H. 2008) (plaintiff's claim that defendant was an ineligible candidate fails for lack of standing, which has never been extended to voters challenging the eligibility of a particular candidate (emphasis deleted)); Jones v. Bush, 122 F. Supp. 2d 713, 717 (N.D. Tex.) (plaintiffs lacked standing to assert a claim that Texas electors could not constitutionally cast ballots in favor of defendants), affd, 244 F.3d 134 (5th Cir. 2000) (per curiam); cf. Berg v. Obama, 586 F.3d 234, 240 (3d Cir. 2009) (Now that the election is over, [the plaintiff]'s stake in the legitimacy of Obama's presidency is shared by an even greater number of people, i.e., all 300 million-plus U.S. citizens, whether voters or not.). [T]he plaintiff bears the burden of pleading facts necessary to demonstrate standing, Hochendoner, 823 F.3d at 730, and the Plaintiff here has failed to meet that burden. Federal courts have jurisdiction over a case or controversy under Article III of the U.S. Constitution only if the plaintiff has standing to sue. Sibley, 866 F. Supp. at 1920 (D.D.C. 2012) (citation omitted). I am duty-bound to notice, and act upon, defects in its subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte. Spooner v. EEN, Inc., 644 F.3d 62, 67 (1st Cir. 2011). Accordingly, the Plaintiff's TRO Motion (ECF No. 14) is DENIED and the Clerk is directed to dismiss this action. By JUDGE NANCY TORRESEN. (mnd) (Entered: 01/19/2021)

MOTION for Reconsideration re 21 Order filed by ROBERT R DYER (mnd) (Entered: 01/19/2021)

ORDER denying the Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 22 ) of my order denying his Third TRO Motion. The Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of my finding that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because he has not established the irreducible constitutional minimum of standing, namely an injury in fact. See Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540, 1547 (2016). Citing the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the Plaintiff argues that he has procedural standing because that act of Congress gives standing to have the Plaintiffs concerns being heard. Mot. for Reconsideration 2. I disagree. Injury in fact is a constitutional requirement, and it is settled that Congress cannot erase Article IIIs standing requirements by statutorily granting the right to sue to a plaintiff who would not otherwise have standing. Spokeo, at 154748 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Here, the Plaintiff fails to show that the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was designed to protect some threatened concrete interest particular to the Plaintiff and therefore he has not established an injury in fact under a procedural standing analysis. See Nulankeyutmonen Nkihtaqmikon v. Impson, 503 F.3d 18, 27 (1st Cir. 2007). As stated earlier, his claims raise only general government grievances that are insufficient to establish standing. See Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 57374 (1992). I realize that the Plaintiff is concerned about the upcoming inauguration and the transition of power to the Biden/Harris administration. But although the Plaintiff has taken his time to file his Amended Complaint and his three motions for emergency relief, he has not allowed anybody else any time to respond to his concerns. As a result, I have had no opportunity to hear from any of the Defendants in this case, and the Plaintiff has left me with very little time to rule. In short, the emergencies have been of the Plaintiffs own making. I have now ruled that the Plaintiff lacks standing and that I, therefore, do not have jurisdiction to hear this case. If the Plaintiff disagrees with my decision, his recourse is to appeal my decision to the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. The Plaintiffs motion for reconsideration is DENIED. By JUDGE NANCY TORRESEN. (mnd) (Entered: 01/19/2021)

Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief 1 AND Order on Motion for TRO

JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL - By Melody Dalphonse, Deputy Clerk (mnd) (Entered: 01/20/2021)

Order on Motion for Reconsideration

NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 24 Judgment filed by ROBERT R DYER. NOTICE TO COUNSEL: Counsel should register for a First Circuit CM/ECF Appellate Filer Account at https://pacer.psc.uscourts.gov/pscof/regWizard.jsf and review the First Circuit requirements for electronic filing by visiting the CM/ECF Information section at http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cmecf (mnd) (Entered: 01/29/2021)

APPEAL COVER SHEET Re: 25 Notice of Appeal (bfa) (Entered: 02/01/2021)

CLERK'S CERTIFICATE Re: 25 Notice of Appeal. Documents sent to the U.S. Court of Appeals. (bfa) (Entered: 02/01/2021)

Abbreviated Appeal Record Transmitted Electronically to U.S. Court of Appeals re 25 Notice of Appeal (bfa)

USCA Case Number 21-1093 for 25 Notice of Appeal filed by ROBERT R DYER. (mnd) (Entered: 02/01/2021)

Filing Fee Received from ROBERT R DYER: Amount Paid: 505.00. Receipt Number: 221000589. Method of Payment: Credit Card. Purpose of Payment: Appeal Filing Fee. Date Paid: 2/12/2021. (mnd)