Case: Bormuth v. Johnson

2:16-cv-13166 | U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan

Filed Date: Sept. 1, 2016

Closed Date: Aug. 1, 2017

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

This is a case alleging election interference and election mismanagement in Michigan.  On September 1, 2017, plaintiff, a former Democratic primary candidate for the Michigan House of Representatives who lost the 2016 election by a wide margin to a candidate backed by the local Democratic party, filed this suit in the Eastern District of Michigan. He alleged that the Michigan Secretary of State wrongfully denied his recount petition and implemented a series of unconstitutional measures related …

This is a case alleging election interference and election mismanagement in Michigan. 

On September 1, 2017, plaintiff, a former Democratic primary candidate for the Michigan House of Representatives who lost the 2016 election by a wide margin to a candidate backed by the local Democratic party, filed this suit in the Eastern District of Michigan. He alleged that the Michigan Secretary of State wrongfully denied his recount petition and implemented a series of unconstitutional measures related to the filing of campaign finance disclosure documents.

Plaintiff alleged there was manipulation of voting machine tallies that had occurred, since his final vote count was 420 votes, a number associated with marijuana. He also took issue with comments made to him by poll workers on the day of the election, which made him suspect that he was being discriminated against. However, when he sought a re-count, the state denied this, on the basis that the number of votes of difference between him and the next candidate was too large for there to be an effect on the outcome.

Plaintiff also alleged that he had been told on June 1, 2016 that he had to file a campaign finance disclosure form by July 22, 2016. On July 22, when he attempted to fill out the form on the computer, he ran into difficulty. On July 25, he e-mailed a state employee, who told him he could fax the form and he did so. However, the next day, he was informed that his faxed form was not acceptable and he would have to file the form electronically. Mr. Bormuth indicated that he believed he had properly filed the form by fax and would not be refiling. He alleged that the refusals to accept his faxed campaign finance disclosure form and refusal to perform the vote recount were based on Christian bias against him as a pagan. 

Plaintiff also made equal protection claims. He alleged that he was protected as being elderly and lacking technological skills. These are not protected classes, which the Plaintiff later conceded. He later contended that he is a member of a suspect class because he is Pagan and has only modest financial resources.

On September 30, 2016, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss. 

On January 10, 2017, the court granted the motion to dismiss. The plaintiff appealed, and the Sixth Circuit affirmed the District Court's decision on March 2, 2018. 

The case is now closed. 

Summary Authors

Matthew Gerber (4/8/2024)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5479969/parties/bormuth-v-johnson/


Judge(s)

Edmunds, Nancy Garlock (Michigan)

Attorney for Plaintiff

Bormuth, Peter (Michigan)

Attorney for Defendant

Barton, Denise C. (Michigan)

Fedynsky, John G. (Michigan)

Fracassi, Adam L.S. (Michigan)

show all people

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document
001

2:16-cv-13166

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

Sept. 1, 2016

Sept. 1, 2016

Complaint
013

2:16-cv-13166

Report and Recommendation to Grant In Part and Take Under Advisement in Part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [10)

Oct. 24, 2016

Oct. 24, 2016

Magistrate Report/Recommendation

2016 WL 7025173

020

2:16-cv-13166

Opinion and Order Adopting the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation as Modified

Jan. 10, 2017

Jan. 10, 2017

Order/Opinion

2017 WL 82977

035

2:16-cv-13166

Judgment

Aug. 1, 2017

Aug. 1, 2017

Order/Opinion
034

2:16-cv-13166

Opinion and Order Adopting the Magistrate Judge's June 16, 2017 Report and Recommendation [30]

Aug. 1, 2017

Aug. 1, 2017

Order/Opinion

2017 WL 3262445

039

2:16-cv-13166

Order on Appeal from the US District Court

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

March 2, 2018

March 2, 2018

Order/Opinion

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5479969/bormuth-v-johnson/

Last updated Aug. 8, 2025, 7:18 a.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link
1

Civil Case - Complaint

Sept. 1, 2016

Sept. 1, 2016

Clearinghouse
3

Referring Pretrial Matters to Magistrate Judge*

Sept. 1, 2016

Sept. 1, 2016

PACER
4

Regarding Parties Responsibility to Notify Court of Address Changes*

Sept. 6, 2016

Sept. 6, 2016

PACER
7

Appearance

Sept. 13, 2016

Sept. 13, 2016

PACER
8

~Util - Set Deadlines/Hearings AND Order

Sept. 16, 2016

Sept. 16, 2016

PACER
9

Appearance

Sept. 30, 2016

Sept. 30, 2016

PACER
10

Dismiss

Sept. 30, 2016

Sept. 30, 2016

PACER
11

Response to Motion

Oct. 11, 2016

Oct. 11, 2016

PACER
12

Reply to Response to Motion

Oct. 17, 2016

Oct. 17, 2016

PACER
13

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 10 MOTION to Dismiss in Lieu of Answer and Brief in Support filed by Ruth Johnson, Bill Schuette Signed by Magistrate Judge David R. Grand. (EBut)

Oct. 24, 2016

Oct. 24, 2016

Clearinghouse
14

Hearing on Motion*

Nov. 2, 2016

Nov. 2, 2016

PACER
15

Objection to Report and Recommendation

Nov. 7, 2016

Nov. 7, 2016

PACER
16

Objection to Report and Recommendation

Nov. 7, 2016

Nov. 7, 2016

PACER
17

Response - Free

Nov. 9, 2016

Nov. 9, 2016

PACER
18

Response - Free

Nov. 21, 2016

Nov. 21, 2016

PACER
19

Notice - Other

Dec. 21, 2016

Dec. 21, 2016

PACER
20

OPINION and ORDER Adopting the Magistrate Judge's 13 Report and Recommendation as Modified. Signed by District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds. (KWin)

Jan. 10, 2017

Jan. 10, 2017

Clearinghouse
21

Notice of Appeal - 6th Circuit

Feb. 2, 2017

Feb. 2, 2017

PACER
22

Certificate of Service of Notice of Appeal - 6th Circuit*

Feb. 2, 2017

Feb. 2, 2017

PACER
23

Appeal Order/Opinion/Judgment

March 29, 2017

March 29, 2017

PACER
24

Motion - Free

April 6, 2017

April 6, 2017

PACER
25

Appearance

April 20, 2017

April 20, 2017

PACER
26

Response to Motion

April 20, 2017

April 20, 2017

PACER
27

Reply to Response to Motion

April 26, 2017

April 26, 2017

PACER
28

Motion - Free

May 30, 2017

May 30, 2017

PACER
29

Response to Motion

June 13, 2017

June 13, 2017

PACER
30

Report and Recommendation

June 16, 2017

June 16, 2017

PACER
31

Order on Motion - Free AND Order on Motion - Free

June 16, 2017

June 16, 2017

PACER
32

Objection to Report and Recommendation

July 5, 2017

July 5, 2017

PACER
33

Response - Free

July 17, 2017

July 17, 2017

PACER
34

ORDER Adopting Report and Recommendation and granting 10 remaining portion of Motion to Dismiss, which was not yet resolved by Magistrate. Signed by District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds. (CBet)

Aug. 1, 2017

Aug. 1, 2017

Clearinghouse
35

Judgment*

Aug. 1, 2017

Aug. 1, 2017

Clearinghouse
37

Notice of Appeal - 6th Circuit

Aug. 30, 2017

Aug. 30, 2017

PACER
38

Certificate of Service of Notice of Appeal - 6th Circuit*

Aug. 30, 2017

Aug. 30, 2017

PACER

Appeal Fee Received

Aug. 30, 2017

Aug. 30, 2017

PACER
39

OPINION from U.S. Court of Appeals - Sixth Circuit re 37 Notice of Appeal filed by Peter Bormuth [Appeal Case Number 17-2053] (SKra) (Entered: 03/02/2018)

March 2, 2018

March 2, 2018

Clearinghouse
40

MANDATE from U.S. Court of Appeals - Sixth Circuit as to 37 Notice of Appeal filed by Peter Bormuth [Appeal Case Number 17-2053] (DWor) (Entered: 03/26/2018)

March 26, 2018

March 26, 2018

RECAP

Case Details

State / Territory: Michigan

Case Type(s):

Election/Voting Rights

Special Collection(s):

Law Firm Antiracism Alliance (LFAA) project

Key Dates

Filing Date: Sept. 1, 2016

Closing Date: Aug. 1, 2017

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Plaintiff was a former Democratic primary candidate for the Michigan House of Representatives who lost the election.

Public Interest Lawyer: No

Filed Pro Se: Yes

Class Action Sought: No

Class Action Outcome: Not sought

Defendants

Ruth Johnson and Bill Schuette, State

Case Details

Causes of Action:

42 U.S.C. § 1983

42 U.S.C. § 1985

Available Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Complaint (any)

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Defendant

Nature of Relief:

None

Source of Relief:

None

Issues

Voting:

Voting: General & Misc.