Filed Date: Aug. 16, 2018
Closed Date: Feb. 12, 2019
Clearinghouse coding complete
This is a case about alleged election violations in a city in Alabama.
On August 16, 2018 six individual plaintiffs filed a suit against officials of the City of Bessemer, including the Mayor of Bessemer and the Bessemer City council members. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants were unfit to oversee another municipal election based on numerous elections violations that occurred at various polling locations in the City of Bessemer in the 2014 municipal elections. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants’ patterns and practices resulted in, among other things, a failure to properly train election officials, ill-equipped polling precincts, a consistent lack of privacy in voting booths, undue influence in casting ballots for preferred candidates, negligent and/or intentional fraudulent handling and misuse of ballot machines, absentee ballots, and provisional ballots, and widespread negligent and/or intentional fraudulent error in reporting of election results. The plaintiffs’ sought compensatory and punitive damages allowable under law, attorney’s fees and costs of the action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988 and injunctive relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Specifically, the plaintiffs’ sought preliminary injunctive relief enjoining any and all involvement by defendants in the administration of the August 2018 municipal election. The case was filed in the Northern District of Alabama. On the day that the case was filed, the court reassigned it from Magistrate Judge John H. England III to District Judge Madeline Hughes Haikala.
On August 24, 2018, the Court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. The Court found that there was no evidence of irregularities that would warrant a preliminary injunction and could not conclude that there was a substantial likelihood that the plaintiffs would succeed in proving a constitutional violation or a violation of the Voting Rights Act with respect to the 2018 election. The Court noted that delaying the 2018 election to accommodate new officials would impose significant logistical and financial challenges, and on a stronger record, the Court might have found that these costs were necessary and unavoidable, but, balancing the equities, the Court could not impose these costs where the evidence of anticipated tampering or intimidation in the current record was scant, and where these costs could have been cabined or eliminated entirely if the plaintiffs had requested relief earlier.
On October 31, 2018, the defendants’ filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. The plaintiffs did not oppose the motion to dismiss the complaint, and on February 12, 2019, the Court dismissed the case as moot.
Summary Authors
Nancy Urizar (9/23/2024)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/7746152/parties/underwood-v-gulley/
Haikala, Madeline Hughes (Alabama)
Rice, Richard Allan (Alabama)
Jr, Alfred H (Alabama)
Paden, R Shan (Alabama)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/7746152/underwood-v-gulley/
Last updated Aug. 9, 2025, 9:06 p.m.
State / Territory: Alabama
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Law Firm Antiracism Alliance (LFAA) project
Key Dates
Filing Date: Aug. 16, 2018
Closing Date: Feb. 12, 2019
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Citizens of the United States of America who presently reside within the jurisdiction of the Court
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Voting Rights Act, section 2, 52 U.S.C. § 10301 (previously 42 U.S.C. § 1973)
Available Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Defendant
Nature of Relief:
Source of Relief:
Issues
Voting: