Filed Date: Feb. 5, 2021
Closed Date: Jan. 20, 2022
Clearinghouse coding complete
On February 5, 2021, a pro se individual (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against the State of Georgia (“Defendant”) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia. Plaintiff alleged that the January 2021 runoff election of Georgia’s two United States Senators was unconstitutional and void. Specifically, Plaintiff argued that Defendant could not impose upon Plaintiff Defendant’s duty to select Georgia’s United States Senators, and Plaintiff had no constitutional authority to choose Georgia’s United States Senators. Plaintiff argued that the dispute should be decided by the meaning of the word “State” in Article 5 of the Constitution. Plaintiff requested that the court provide an order declaring that the election of the two individuals unconstitutional and direct the Georgia State Legislature to immediately choose two senators to represent the Georgia in the United States Senate.
On March 19, 2021, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint for insufficient service of process, lack of subject matter jurisdiction, Eleventh Amendment Immunity, and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. On March 29, 2021, Plaintiff filed an opposition to the Motion to Dismiss, arguing that the Seventeenth Amendment was not applicable to Georgia because Georgia did not ratify it. Plaintiff argued that the Court had jurisdiction because determining whether the Seventeenth Amendment was valid in Georgia was a federal question. He also argued that he had standing because by recruiting Plaintiff to cast an unconstitutional vote, Defendant injured his duty as an American citizen and was violating his oath as a naval officer to defend the Constitution.
On June 1, 2023, Defendant filed an unopposed Motion to Stay Discovery pending the Motion to Dismiss the Complaint. On June 3, 2023, the Court issued an Order staying discovery, noting that a preliminary peek at Defendant’s dispositive motion the Court believed there was an immediate and clear possibility of a ruling that may be dispositive.
On January 20, 2022, the Court issued an Order, initially analyzing the adequacy of service of the Complaint but ultimately basing its decision on a jurisdictional argument. The Court found that Plaintiff failed to allege a sufficient injury by not alleging an injury at all. Rather, Plaintiff sought an advisory opinion about the meaning of the word “State” in the Constitution. Such a request was not properly before the Court, and Plaintiff lacked standing to bring his claims. Because Plaintiff lacked standing, the Court declined to address whether Defendant was entitled to sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment. Further, the Court lacked jurisdiction to determine the merits of Plaintiff's claims and accordingly declined to do so. The Court granted Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, dismissing the matter and closing the case.
Summary Authors
(12/1/2023)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/59295257/parties/swanson-v-state-of-georgia/
Hall, James Randal (Georgia)
Swanson, Brian D. (Georgia)
Willard, Russell David (Georgia)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/59295257/swanson-v-state-of-georgia/
Last updated Oct. 30, 2025, 10:47 p.m.
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Law Firm Antiracism Alliance (LFAA) project
Key Dates
Filing Date: Feb. 5, 2021
Closing Date: Jan. 20, 2022
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
A voter in the state of Georgia.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: Yes
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Defendant Type(s):
Facility Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Constitutional Clause(s):
Due Process: Procedural Due Process
Other Dockets:
Southern District of Georgia 1:21-cv-00020
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Defendant
Nature of Relief:
Source of Relief:
Issues
Voting: