Case: Brown v. Schedler
2:17-cv-09627 | U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana
Filed Date: Sept. 26, 2017
Closed Date: May 3, 2018
Clearinghouse coding complete
Case Summary
This is a case alleging election mismanagement after two candidates were disqualified from a New Orleans election on the grounds that the falsified their personal tax history.
On September 26, 2017, two Louisiana citizens who had sought candidacies in New Orleans local filed a Complaint (pro se) against the Secretary of State of Louisiana, the Attorney General of Louisiana (together, the “State Official Defendants”), several Louisiana state court judges (altogether the “Judge Defendants” and collectively with the State Official Defendants, the “Defendants”), when their candidacies were challenged on the grounds that they falsified their personal tax history. Plaintiffs first contested these challenges in Louisiana state court where neither one succeeded and they were disqualified from the ballot. In the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, Plaintiffs asserted that their disqualification from their candidacies violated the Voting Rights Act of 1965, Article I, section 10 of the Louisiana Constitution, and the Louisiana Revised Statutes section 47:1508. As their remedy, Plaintiffs sought: (1) a declaratory judgement that Defendants’ policies violate Plaintiffs’ right to political participation under the Voting Rights Act; (2) an injunction against Defendants to return Plaintiffs’ names to the ballot for the October 14, 2017 elections; (3) a permanent injunction against all Defendants from using “any of the Jim Crow Laws against candidates running for public office”; and (4) compensatory damages in the amount of ten million dollars. The case was first assigned to Judge Jane Triche Milazzo and later reassigned to Judge Susie Morgan.
On October 26, 2017, the Judge Defendants moved to dismiss, providing three reasons. First, that compensatory (money) damages were not available under the Voting Rights Act. Second, that they were entitled to absolute judicial immunity. Lastly, that Plaintiffs’ claims were barred under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine (see Exxon Mobile Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280 (2005).
On April 26, 2017, the court granted the motion to dismiss. The court examined the Judge Defendants' second argument and found that the factors determining if an act is judicial in nature are to be broadly construed in favor of immunity. Thus, the Court found the Judge Defendants were protected from suit.
On November 15, 2017, the State Official Defendants also moved to dismiss for three reasons. They first argued that Plaintiffs' claims should be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. They had three key reasons for this argument. First, that Plaintiffs’ claims were barred under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Under this doctrine, federal courts do not have jurisdiction over cases previously brought in state courts where the party filing is seeking review and rejection of the preceding state court judgement. Here, the Court held that Plaintiffs’ claims invited the Court to review the state court judgement and thus lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Second, that Plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief was moot. Fifth Circuit case law has long established that when the relevant election has passed, injunctive relief to return a candidate’s name to a ballot is moot. Here, the Court determined that only in exceptional circumstances where there is egregious defiance of the Voting Rights Act would an election be invalidated and that such circumstance did not exist here, so Plaintiffs’ claims for injunctive relief were moot. Third, that Plaintiffs’ claims were prohibited under the Eleventh Amendment. The Supreme Court and Louisiana state courts have held that Louisiana agencies or entities acting in their official capacities are immune from suit by Louisiana citizens in federal court. Here, the Court determined that Plaintiffs’ claims were barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Thus, the Court granted the State Official Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
The State Official Defendants next moved to dismiss on the basis that Plaintiffs failed to state a claim. Plaintiffs argued that the state failed to obtain federal preclearance for Louisiana Revised Statutes section 47:1508. The Court dispelled this and found that Defendant Landry demonstrated that preclearance was properly obtained. Plaintiffs next argued that their claim could be enforced retroactively under section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. The Court cited several instances of case law which indicated that the ruling in Shelby County v. Holder precluded suits to enforce section 5’s preclearance requirement to all events regardless of if they predate or postdate the ruling (540 U.S. 529 (2013); see also Harper v. Virginia Dep't of Taxation, 509 U.S 86 (1993); Thompson v. Attorney General of Mississippi, 129 F. Supp. 3d 430 (S.D. Miss. 2015)). Thus, the State Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim was granted.
Lastly, the State Defendants moved to dismiss based on Plaintiffs’ desired remedy. Plaintiffs sought compensatory (money) damages. This form of relief is not available under section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Thus, the Plaintiffs’ claim for compensatory damages was also dismissed.
On May 3, 2018, the Court found for the State Official Defendants and granted their motions to dismiss.
This case is closed.
Summary Authors
Alexandra Summa (5/10/2024)
People
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6273869/parties/brown-v-schedler/
Morgan, Donna Sue (Louisiana)
Batiste, Belden (Louisiana)
Brown, Howard Anthony (Louisiana)
Cangelosi, Celia R. (Louisiana)
Morris, Sheri M. (Louisiana)
Documents in the Clearinghouse
Docket
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6273869/brown-v-schedler/
Last updated June 29, 2026, 5:23 a.m.
Docket for: Brown v. Schedler
Case Details
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Law Firm Antiracism Alliance (LFAA) project
Key Dates
Filing Date: Sept. 26, 2017
Closing Date: May 3, 2018
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Plaintiffs are two Louisiana residents seeking to fill vacancies in the Orleans Parish Assessor's Office and District D Council.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: Yes
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Other
State-Wide
State-Wide
State-Wide
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Voting Rights Act, section 5, 52 U.S.C. § 10304 (previously 42 U.S.C. § 1973c)
Other Dockets:
Eastern District of Louisiana 2:17-cv-09627
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Defendant
Relief Granted:
Source of Relief:
Issues
Voting:
Case Summary of Brown v. Schedler, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, https://clearinghouse.net/case/44868/ (last updated 5/10/2024).