Filed Date: Feb. 5, 2016
Closed Date: Dec. 20, 2016
Clearinghouse coding complete
This case is about a Hispanic businessman who alleged he had been improperly excluded from the Presidential Primary Ballot for the Democratic Party in the state of Tennessee.
In Tennessee, a presidential candidate can gain access to the Democratic Primary Ballot by being named by the Secretary of State as “nationally recognized candidate.” On November 23, 2015, the businessman had sent a letter to the Secretary of State of Tennessee, formally requesting to be placed on the Presidential Primary Ballot for the Democratic Party. The Plaintiff included a list of news media sources that covered his electoral campaign to demonstrate that he was a candidate that was generally recognized in the national news media. On December 17, 2015, the Secretary of State for Tennessee issued a memorandum certifying the candidates for the Presidential Primary Ballot for the Democratic Party, which did not include the businessman.
On February 5, 2016, the businessman, as plaintiff, filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee. The plaintiff, representing himself, sued the Secretary of State of Tennessee and the Democratic Party of Tennessee under 42 U.S.C § 1983 and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The plaintiff sought declaratory relief that Tenn. Code Ann. § 2-5-205 was unconstitutionally vague and injunctive relief that the Secretary of State be directed to include the plaintiff’s name on the Presidential Primary Ballot as the Secretary of State’s refusal to certify the plaintiff’s name resulted in de facto discrimination based on national origin. The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Barbara D. Holmes for management of the case on March 4, 2016.
On March 8, 2016, the defendant Democratic Party filed a motion to dismiss as it alleged that the case had become moot as the Presidential Primary Ballot had taken place on March 1, 2016 and that the complaint did not contain any wrongdoing by the defendant
On March 14, 2016, the defendant Secretary of State filed a motion to dismiss as he also alleged that the case had become moot for the same reason given in the Democratic Party’s motion to dismiss and the plaintiff had failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The defendant argued that the plaintiff had failed to demonstrate that Tenn. Code Ann. § 2-5-205 is sufficiently vague as to be struck down. The defendant also argued that the plaintiff’s allegations did not do more than merely create speculation of racial discrimination and so did not establish any entitlement to relief.
On April 1, 2016, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint which withdrew his request for injunctive relief, on the basis the Presidential Primary Ballot had passed, and included a request for nominal and compensatory damages as the plaintiff alleged he had spent millions of dollars on a nationwide presidential campaign and the Democratic Party and Secretary of State had harmed his nationwide campaign and deprived him of receiving delegates from Tennessee.
The defendants both filed further motions to dismiss on April 15, 2016, which reiterated their prior arguments. In addition, the defendant Democratic Party alleged the plaintiff had failed to state a claim for monetary relief against them. The defendant Secretary of State further alleged in its motion to dismiss that the Eleventh Amendment barred claims for monetary damages against employees of the state named in their official capacity.
The plaintiff filed oppositions to both motions to dismiss on May 3, 2016. As well as furthering his prior arguments, the plaintiff alleged that the case was not moot as it has affected his wider presidential campaign and there is the possibility of repetition of the issue, should he decide to apply to be on the Presidential Primary Ballot in a future election.
On October 24, 2016, Judge Barbara D. Holmes submitted her Report and Recommendation on the case. Judge Holmes concluded that the subject matter jurisdiction of the Court to hear the case had not been lost for mootness, accepting the plaintiff’s argument that there was a risk the issue could arise and be repeated in the future. Judge Holmes accepted the defendants’ motions to dismiss the Title VI claim for discrimination, as the plaintiff did not address the defendants’ arguments for dismissal and therefore this claim was considered abandoned. Judge Holmes also accepted each of the defendant’s motions to dismiss the Section 1983 claim. Judge Holmes dismissed the claim against the defendant Democratic Party as the claim may only be brought against those who have acted under the color of state law, as the defendant Democratic Party was not an agent of the state and the plaintiff had not alleged that the Democratic Party acted under color of state law. Judge Holmes dismissed the claim against the defendant Secretary of State, as she agreed with the defendant Secretary of State’s argument that the claim was legally barred under the Eleventh Amendment and so no nominal or compensatory damages could be awarded against the defendant Secretary of State. Judge Holmes also agreed that Tenn. Code. Ann. § 2-5-205(a)(1) was not unconstitutionally vague. Judge Holmes therefore recommended that the motions to dismiss submitted by the defendants be granted and the plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed with prejudice.
The plaintiff did not file any object to Judge Holmes’ Report and Recommendation and so U.S. District Judge Aleta A. Trauger ordered that the motions to dismiss be granted and the case be dismissed with prejudice on December 20, 2016. The case is now closed.
Summary Authors
George Fagan (10/2/2024)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4383817/parties/de-la-fuente-v-democratic-party-of-tennessee/
Trauger, Aleta Arthur (Tennessee)
Fuente, Roque De (Tennessee)
Gastel, Benjamin A. (Tennessee)
Kleinfelter, Janet M. (Tennessee)
Stranch, James Gerard (Tennessee)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4383817/de-la-fuente-v-democratic-party-of-tennessee/
Last updated Jan. 30, 2025, 2:43 p.m.
State / Territory: Tennessee
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Law Firm Antiracism Alliance (LFAA) project
Key Dates
Filing Date: Feb. 5, 2016
Closing Date: Dec. 20, 2016
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
A Hispanic businessman who sought inclusion on the Presidential Primary Ballot for the Democratic Party in the state of Tennessee, with the ultimate aim of securing the Democratic Party's nomination for President of the United States in the 2016 Presidential Election.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: Yes
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Secretary of State of Tennessee, State
Democratic Party of Tennessee, Political Party
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Title VI, Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq.
Available Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Defendant
Nature of Relief:
Source of Relief:
Issues
Discrimination Basis:
National origin discrimination
Affected National Origin/Ethnicity(s):
Voting: