Case: Escoffery-Bey v. New York City Board of Election

1:16-cv-03518 | U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York

Filed Date: May 11, 2016

Closed Date: Nov. 7, 2016

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On May 11, 2016, several individuals and an individual trying to be placed on the ballot in New York filed this lawsuit pro se in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The plaintiffs sued the New York City Board of Elections, alleging several federal constitutional and statutory violations after the Board declined to place a candidate's name on the ballot for the Democratic primary election scheduled for June 28, 2016. The plaintiffs claimed that the rejection was based…

On May 11, 2016, several individuals and an individual trying to be placed on the ballot in New York filed this lawsuit pro se in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The plaintiffs sued the New York City Board of Elections, alleging several federal constitutional and statutory violations after the Board declined to place a candidate's name on the ballot for the Democratic primary election scheduled for June 28, 2016. The plaintiffs claimed that the rejection was based on allegations of duplicate petition sheet numbers, despite having submitted valid nomination petitions on March 9, 2016. They asserted violations of their rights under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988, the First and Fourteenth Amendments, the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), and the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA).

The plaintiffs sought injunctive relief to compel the Board of Elections to place the candidate’s name on the ballot, along with a request for monetary damages, attorney’s fees, and court costs. However, they failed to file any request for emergency relief or provide proof of service of the complaint. On June 30, 2016, Judge Jesse M. Furman issued an Order to Show Cause, noting that the primary election date had passed and the case appeared moot. The plaintiffs were instructed to file a response by July 18, 2016, explaining why the case should not be dismissed.

Despite the court’s instructions, no response was received from the plaintiffs. Subsequently, on October 20, 2016, the court issued another order requiring the plaintiffs to explain why they had not served the complaint within the 90-day deadline mandated by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). The plaintiffs again failed to respond. As a result, on November 7, 2016, Judge Furman dismissed the case for failure to prosecute and for lack of service, ordering the case closed.

Summary Authors

Jillian Wolf (5/2/2025)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4658494/parties/escoffery-bey-v-new-york-city-board-of-elections/


Judge(s)
Attorney for Plaintiff

Edgar, Donald S (New York)

Escoffery, Diane (New York)

Escoffery, Mark (New York)

Escoffery-Bey, Mark (New York)

Attorney for Defendant

Edmonds, Elizabeth (New York)

show all people

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document
1

1:16-cv-03518

Complaint

Escoffery-Bey v. New York City Board of Electio

May 11, 2016

May 11, 2016

Complaint

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4658494/escoffery-bey-v-new-york-city-board-of-elections/

Last updated May 3, 2025, 12:59 a.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link
1

COMPLAINT against New York City Board Of Elections. (Filing Fee $ 400.00, Receipt Number 465401152414)Document filed by Maxine Turner, Mark Escoffery-Bey, Diane Escoffery, Mark Escoffery. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3.1, # 4 Exhibit 3.1, # 5 Exhibit 3.2 Part 2, # 6 3.Part 3, # 7 3.Part 4, # 8 3.Part 5, # 9 3.Part 6, # 10 3. Part 7, # 11 3. Part 8, # 12 3. Part 9, # 13 3. Part 10, # 14 3. Part 11, # 15 3. Part 12, # 16 3. Part 13, # 17 3. Part 14, # 18 3. Part15, # 19 Exhibit 4, # 20 Exhibit 5)(dgo) (Entered: 05/12/2016)

1 Exhibit 1

View on PACER

2 Exhibit 2

View on PACER

3 Exhibit 3.1

View on PACER

4 Exhibit 3.1

View on PACER

5 Exhibit 3.2 Part 2

View on PACER

6 3.Part 3

View on PACER

7 3.Part 4

View on PACER

8 3.Part 5

View on PACER

9 3.Part 6

View on PACER

10 3. Part 7

View on PACER

11 3. Part 8

View on PACER

12 3. Part 9

View on PACER

13 3. Part 10

View on PACER

14 3. Part 11

View on PACER

15 3. Part 12

View on PACER

16 3. Part 13

View on PACER

17 3. Part 14

View on PACER

18 3. Part15

View on PACER

19 Exhibit 4

View on PACER

20 Exhibit 5

View on PACER

May 11, 2016

May 11, 2016

Clearinghouse

Summons Issued

May 12, 2016

May 12, 2016

PACER
3

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE: On May 11, 2016, Plaintiff Mark Escoffery-Bey, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint seeking to compel the New York City Board of Elections to place his name on the ballot in the June 28, 2016 Democratic primary. (See Docket No. 1, at 3). No request for emergency relief nor, for that matter, any proof of service was filed thereafter. As June 28th has now come and gone, Plaintiff's complaint would seem to be moot. Accordingly, Plaintiff is ordered to show cause in writing, in a brief not to exceed ten pages and to be filed no later than July 18, 2016, why the case should not be dismissed as moot. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff. Show Cause Response due by 7/18/2016. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 6/30/2016) (cf) (Entered: 06/30/2016)

June 30, 2016

June 30, 2016

PACER

Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk

June 30, 2016

June 30, 2016

PACER

Mail Order by Certified Mail

July 1, 2016

July 1, 2016

PACER
4

RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE re: 3 Order to Show Cause. Document filed by Mark Escoffery-Bey. (sc) (Entered: 07/19/2016)

July 15, 2016

July 15, 2016

PACER
5

SUMMONS RETURNED EXECUTED. Summons and Complaint served. New York City Board Of Elections served on 6/9/2016, answer due 6/30/2016. Service was accepted by unnamed person at 32 Broadway, New York, N.Y. Document filed by Mark Escoffery-Bey. (sc) (Entered: 07/19/2016)

July 15, 2016

July 15, 2016

PACER
6

ORDER: Defendant is hereby ORDERED to enter an appearance and to answer the complaint no later than October 7, 2016. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this Order to the New York City Board of Elections, to the New York City Law Department, and to Plaintiff. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 9/19/2016) (tn) (Entered: 09/19/2016)

Sept. 19, 2016

Sept. 19, 2016

PACER

Mail Order by Certified Mail

Sept. 19, 2016

Sept. 19, 2016

PACER

Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk

Sept. 19, 2016

Sept. 19, 2016

PACER
7

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Stephen Edward Kitzinger on behalf of New York City Board Of Elections. (Kitzinger, Stephen) (Entered: 10/14/2016)

Oct. 14, 2016

Oct. 14, 2016

PACER
8

LETTER addressed to Judge Jesse M. Furman from Stephen Kitzinger dated October 14, 2016 re: failure of service. Document filed by New York City Board Of Elections.(Kitzinger, Stephen) (Entered: 10/14/2016)

Oct. 14, 2016

Oct. 14, 2016

PACER
9

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of letter served on Mark Escoffery-Bey, Mark Escoffery, Diane Escoffery, and Maxine Turner on October 14, 2016. Service was made by Mail. Document filed by New York City Board Of Elections. (Kitzinger, Stephen) (Entered: 10/14/2016)

Oct. 14, 2016

Oct. 14, 2016

PACER
10

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE: Plaintiff shall show cause as to why he has failed to properly serve the summons and Complaint within the 90 days prescribed by Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or, if Plaintiff believes that Defendant has been properly served, when and in what manner such service was made. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if the Court does not receive any communication from Plaintiff by November 3, 2016, showing good cause why such service was not made within the 90 days, the Court will dismiss the case without further notice. In addition, in the event that Plaintiff's address changes, please be sure to inform the Court of Plaintiff's new address. Failure to do so may result in dismissal of this lawsuit. The Clerk of the Court is directed to mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff. (Show Cause Response due by 11/3/2016.) (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 10/20/2016) (cla) (Entered: 10/20/2016)

Oct. 20, 2016

Oct. 20, 2016

PACER

Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk

Oct. 20, 2016

Oct. 20, 2016

PACER

Mail Order by Certified Mail

Oct. 21, 2016

Oct. 21, 2016

PACER
11

ORDER OF DISMISSAL: Plaintiff's complaint was filed on May 11, 2016. The Complaint has not been served on Defendant. On October 20, 2016, this Court issued an Order, directing Plaintiff to communicate with the Court, in writing, by November 3, 2016, showing good cause why Plaintiff failed to serve the summons and Complaint within the 90 days prescribed by Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Order further advised Plaintiff that, if the Court did not receive this communication "showing good cause why such service was not made within the 90 days, the Court will dismiss the case." To date, the Court has received no communication from Plaintiff. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the case is dismissed for failure to prosecute. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. The Clerk of the Court is also directed to mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 11/7/2016) (mro) (Entered: 11/07/2016)

Nov. 7, 2016

Nov. 7, 2016

PACER

Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk

Nov. 7, 2016

Nov. 7, 2016

PACER

Mail Order by Certified Mail

Nov. 7, 2016

Nov. 7, 2016

PACER

Case Details

State / Territory: New York

Case Type(s):

Election/Voting Rights

Special Collection(s):

Law Firm Antiracism Alliance (LFAA) project

Key Dates

Filing Date: May 11, 2016

Closing Date: Nov. 7, 2016

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

The plaintiffs—Mark Escoffery-Bey, Mark Escoffery, Diane Escoffery, and Maxine Turner—are residents of Bronx County, New York, who supported Mark Escoffery-Bey's candidacy and alleged their voting and constitutional rights were violated when he was excluded from the 2016 Democratic primary ballot.

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Public Interest Lawyer: No

Filed Pro Se: Yes

Class Action Sought: No

Class Action Outcome: Not sought

Defendants

New York City Board of Elections (New York), City

Defendant Type(s):

Jurisdiction-wide

Facility Type(s):

Government-run

Case Details

Causes of Action:

42 U.S.C. § 1983

Constitutional Clause(s):

Due Process

Due Process: Procedural Due Process

Due Process: Substantive Due Process

Available Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Complaint (any)

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Defendant

Nature of Relief:

None

Source of Relief:

None

Amount Defendant Pays: N/A

Order Duration: 2016 - 2016

Issues

Voting:

Candidate qualifications