Filed Date: March 14, 2016
Closed Date: May 24, 2016
Clearinghouse coding complete
The plaintiff, a former member of the Arkansas House of Representatives, filed this specific lawsuit on March 14, 2016 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas against Arkansas Secretary of State, Mark Martin, in his personal and official capacities. Prior to the lawsuit, in 2012, the plaintiff was prevented from registering with the Democratic Party of Arkansas as a re-election candidate by a state court order finding him ineligible to hold public office due to a felony conviction on his record. In his complaint, the plaintiff alleged violations of his rights under multiple federal and state laws, including the U.S. Constitution, the Voting Rights Act, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, and the Sherman Antitrust Act. The former representative filed this complaint pro se and simultaneously filed an in forma pauperis motion to proceed without fees or costs.
On May 24, 2016, Judge Denzil Price Marshall issued a global order that applied to this case and the following three related cases: Smith v. Democratic Party of Arkansas et al., Smith v. McGowan, and Smith v. U.S. Department of Education et al. In each case, Judge Marshall granted the in forma pauperis motion but fully dismissed each complaint (with prejudice in this case and Smith v. McGowan and without prejudice in Smith v. Democratic Party of Arkansas et al. and Smith v. U.S. Department of Education et al.). For this case and Smith v. McGowan, Judge Marshall simply stated that the Court had already rejected, on the merits, the former representative's substantially identical claims against the same defendants when it decided Smith v. Democratic Party of Arkansas et al. on September 18, 2015 (which, for the avoidance of doubt, is a different case than the Smith v. Democratic Party of Arkansas et al. decided by the May 24, 2016 global order). As such, res judicata required that the complaint be dismissed. Furthermore, Judge Marshall stated that the Court lacked jurisdiction because Smith v. Democratic Party of Arkansas et al. was on appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (which later affirmed the District Court's adverse judgment). In dismissing, with prejudice, the former representative's claims against Mr. Martin in Smith v. Democratic Party of Arkansas et al., Judge Marshall concluded that Mr. Martin was entitled to qualified immunity as Arkansas' chief election official who was following a facially valid court order.
The former representative has not filed any objections or appeals following the Judgment entered by Judge Marshall on May 24, 2016.
Summary Authors
Nathaniel Hsieh (7/23/2024)
Smith v. Mcgowan, Eastern District of Arkansas (2016)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5563907/parties/smith-v-secretary-of-state/
Marshall, Denzil Price (Arkansas)
Smith, Frederick (Arkansas)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5563907/smith-v-secretary-of-state/
Last updated Aug. 12, 2025, 11:49 p.m.
State / Territory: Arkansas
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Law Firm Antiracism Alliance (LFAA) project
Key Dates
Filing Date: March 14, 2016
Closing Date: May 24, 2016
Case Ongoing: No reason to think so
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
A former member of the Arkansas House of Representatives who was disqualified by a court order from running for re-election due to a felony conviction.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: Yes
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Arkansas Secretary of State, State
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Criminal Conspiracy to Violate Federal Rights, 18 U.S.C. § 241
Criminal Violation of Federal Rights Under Color of Law, 18 U.S.C. § 242
Constitutional Clause(s):
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Defendant
Nature of Relief:
Source of Relief:
Issues
Discrimination Basis:
Voting: