Filed Date: Sept. 25, 2017
Closed Date: May 24, 2018
Clearinghouse coding complete
On June 25, 2013, the United States Supreme Court struck down Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 in Shelby County v. Holder. Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act requires certain covered jurisdictions to obtain approval from federal authorities in Washington, D.C. before changing voting procedures. Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act defined these covered jurisdictions as ones that had a voting device or test in the 1960s or early 1970s and had lower voter turnout or registration in the 1960s and early 1970s. The Supreme Court ruled that the formula in Section 4 could no longer be used as a basis for requiring federal pre-approval of voting changes.
On September 25, 2017, one individual resident of Florida, temporarily living in Revere, Massachusetts due to displacement from Hurricane Irma, filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, claiming that Florida's Voter ID law violated the United States Constitution. Plaintiff was a pro se litigant. The case was assigned to Judge Allison D. Burroughs.
Plaintiff alleged Florida's Voter ID law violated the United States Constitution because. in order to vote in the 2016 Democratic Primary and General Election in Florida, Plaintiff was required to either (1) obtain a Florida ID, which required a new social security card, a copy of Plaintiff's birth certificate, and other documents to prove residency, or (2) bring other paperwork along with his Massachusetts ID to the polls.
On the same day the case was filed, the court issued a summons, advising Plaintiff to complete it for Defendant and serve it in accordance with Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
On May 2, 2018, the court issued an electronic order noting that Plaintiff had not filed any proof of service and Defendant had not appeared. Citing Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires the court, on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff, to either (i) dismiss an action without prejudice or (ii) order service to be completed within a specified time if a defendant is not served within 90 days of the complaint being filed, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause, in writing, by May 16, 2018, explaining why the case should not be dismissed for failure to effect timely service.
On May 24, 2018, the court dismissed Plaintiff's case without prejudice because Plaintiff failed to file proof that Defendant was served.
Summary Authors
Anna Jones (7/9/2025)
Cepeda v. State of Florida, Northern District of Florida (None)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/13435719/parties/roberto-cereda-v-state-of-florida/
Burroughs, Allison Dale (Massachusetts)
Cepeda, Roberto (Massachusetts)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/13435719/roberto-cereda-v-state-of-florida/
Last updated Oct. 25, 2025, 2:26 a.m.
State / Territory: Massachusetts
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Law Firm Antiracism Alliance (LFAA) project
Key Dates
Filing Date: Sept. 25, 2017
Closing Date: May 24, 2018
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
A resident of Florida, temporarily living in Suffolk County, Massachusetts at the time due to Hurricane Irma, who was required to provide certain documentation, under Florida's Voter ID law, to vote in the 2016 Presidential primary election and General Election.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: Yes
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Voting Rights Act, unspecified, 52 U.S.C. § 10301 et seq (previously 42 U.S.C § 1973 et seq.)
Constitutional Clause(s):
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Defendant
Nature of Relief:
Source of Relief:
Issues
Voting: