Filed Date: March 7, 2016
Closed Date: April 19, 2016
Clearinghouse coding complete
On March 7, 2016, the plaintiff filed a complaint pro se in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland against the Board of Elections at Montgomery County, the Democratic National Committee, the Republican National Committee, the Maryland Democratic Party and the Maryland Republic Party. The plaintiff claimed that the use of digital voting machines in various state and national elections violated the Fifteenth Amendment because the Fifteenth Amendment does not permit use of digital voting machines and Congress did not provide consent for use of digital voting machines. The plaintiff alleged that due to the use of digital voting machines, there were no records provided to each voter as to how that person voted when there is a dispute. Further, because voters are unable to present records of their votes to have a third party run a recount, such use of digital machines violates the Fifteenth Amendment. The plaintiff sought injunctive relief cancelling the April 26, 2016 Maryland primary elections and that the 2016 primary voting machines not be used. The plaintiff also sought declaratory relief declaring that the 2012 presidential Maryland primary, the 2014 Maryland midterm election and the 2014 Maryland gubernatorial and country elections were improperly certified and to direct the clerk to notify all U.S. district court of this ruling. Also on March 7, 2016, the plaintiff filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis due to the fact that the plaintiff was indigent.
On March 9, 2016 the plaintiff filed an amended complaint where they reasserted their fundamental claims and clarifying their request for injunctive relief that the 2016 election should be cancelled. On March 17, 2016, the plaintiff filed a writ of mandamus reasserting the same allegations contained in the amended complaint.
On April 19, 2016, the court dismissed the complaint. Judge Chuang, stating that courts may dismiss a case filed in forma pauperis if it determines the action is frivolous or fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted. Judge Chuang noted that an action is frivolous if it raises indisputable meritless legal theory or is founded upon clearly baseless factual contentions, such as fantastic or delusional scenarios. Judge Chuang also noted that courts are permitted to construe the pleadings of self-represented litigations liberally, but the complaint must contain factual allegations sufficient to raise a right to relief above the speculative level and that the claim to relief must be plausible on its face. Because the plaintiff did not provide any basis to support a reasonable conclusion that some plausible cause of action accrued on their behalf, Judge Chuang dismissed the complaint and closed the case. In this same order, Judge Chuang also granted the plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, due to their indigent status.
Summary Authors
(7/22/2024)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4512690/parties/yi-v-board-of-elections/
Chuang, Theodore David (Maryland)
Barr, Daniel Clayton (Maryland)
Boehm, Joshua L (Maryland)
Callais, Amanda R (Maryland)
Bell, Charles H (Maryland)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4512690/yi-v-board-of-elections/
Last updated Oct. 28, 2025, 5:50 p.m.
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Law Firm Antiracism Alliance (LFAA) project
Key Dates
Filing Date: March 7, 2016
Closing Date: April 19, 2016
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
single voter
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: Yes
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Board of Elections (Montgomery), County
Maryland Democratic Party, State
Maryland Republican Party, State
Democratic National Committee, Federal
Republican National Committee, Federal
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Constitutional Clause(s):
Other Dockets:
District of Maryland 8:16-cv-00662
Available Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Defendant
Relief Granted:
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief:
Content of Injunction:
Amount Defendant Pays: $0
Issues
Voting: