Filed Date: Nov. 29, 2016
Closed Date: July 11, 2017
Clearinghouse coding complete
This case is about alleged unconstitutionality of Colorado's 2011 redistricting plan.
On November 29, 2016, the plaintiff, a registered voter in the Second Congressional District of Colorado and a resident of Boulder, Colorado, filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado against the Attorney General of the United States. The plaintiff claimed that the redistricting plan affirmed by the Colorado Supreme Court greatly limited voter choice because many districts had a single political party so dominant that opposition candidates could not win. Namely, the plaintiff suggested that his district was strongly dominated by the Democratic party and the methods used to redistrict left no alternative to a Democratic representative. Representing himself pro se, the plaintiff sought the Colorado legislature to accept districting using his proposed methodology and immediately replace the current districts with plaintiff’s suggested districts. The plaintiff also sought declaratory and injunctive relief. The case was assigned to Judge Lewis T. Babcock and Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya. The case was later reassigned to Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe.
On January 4, 2017, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and for failure to state plausible claims. The motion stated that the plaintiff lacked standing to pursue his claims against the defendant, as he did not show that he suffered an injury in fact, that the Attorney General caused the injury, or that the court may redress the alleged injury. In addition, the defendant argued that the plaintiff’s claims were nothing more than general grievances about the Colorado state government.
On April 17, 2017, the plaintiff filed a motion to amend his original complaint to clarify his “plausible claims”. He claimed that the alleged gerrymandering provided the advantage to the political party carrying out the gerrymandering.
On July 10, 2017, the court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state plausible claims and the court denied plaintiff’s motion to amend the original complaint because plaintiff’s proposed vague amendments involving plausible claims would be futile and would not address nor solve the plaintiff’s lack of standing. The court dismissed plaintiff’s original complaint without prejudice.
On July 11, 2017, the court entered a final judgment that ordered defendant’s motion to dismiss granted and further ordered plaintiff’s motion to amend his complaint denied and dismissed plaintiff’s original complaint without prejudice.
This case is closed.
Summary Authors
Leilani Argersinger (4/16/2024)
Price v. Sessions, District of Colorado (2017)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/13416495/price-v-lynch/
Last updated April 15, 2024, 1 p.m.
State / Territory: Colorado
Case Type(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: Nov. 29, 2016
Closing Date: July 11, 2017
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Plaintiff is a registered voter in the Second Congressional District of the state of Colorado and resides in Boulder, Colorado.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: Yes
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Loretta Lynch, Private Entity/Person
Case Details
Constitutional Clause(s):
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Defendant
Nature of Relief:
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief:
Issues
Voting: