Filed Date: Jan. 28, 2016
Closed Date: April 22, 2016
Clearinghouse coding complete
On January 28, 2016, an individual who sought to be a Democratic candidate for the presidency, and three individuals, filed a suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia Atlanta Division against the Georgia Secretary of State (Defendant GSS) and The Democratic Party of Georgia (Defendant DPG) alleging that the denial of candidate plaintiff’s request to include plaintiff’s name on the ballot for the Democratic candidates in the State of Georgia’s 2016 Presidential Primary violated due process and was arbitrary and capricious, in violation of the United States Constitution. Plaintiffs also alleged that the defendants’ refusal to include candidate plaintiff on the list of approved presidential candidates resulted in de facto discrimination against (i) plaintiffs on the basis of national origin and denied them equal protection of the laws and (ii) against all voters in Georgia who wished to vote for an Hispanic candidate. The plaintiffs were represented by private counsel and the judge assigned to the case was U.S. District Court Judge Richard W. Story.
On January 29, 2016 (one day after filing the Complaint), plaintiffs filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Permanent Injunction seeking a determination that certain provisions of the Georgia Election Code (O.C.G.A §21-2-193 and O.C.G.A §21-2-199) governing access to the Democratic Presidential Primary in Georgia are unconstitutional because they are unduly burdensome, infringe upon constitutional rights and lack a compelling interest. Each defendant filed a separate brief in opposition to the plaintiffs’ motion. Defendant GSS was represented by the Georgia Attorney General’s Office and Defendant DPG was represented by private counsel. The Court held a hearing on February 4, 2016 to hear oral arguments and on February 5, 2016 the court issued an Order denying Plaintiff’s Motion, noting that a preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy not to be granted unless the movant clearly carries the burden of persuasion. The Court also found that the plaintiffs’ claims for relief were barred by laches because they waited to file their Complaint until more than sixty days after being notified, on November 18, 2015, by Defendant DPG of the denial of candidate plaintiff’s request to include his name as a candidate on the Democratic presidential primary ballot, and offered no explanation for that delay. The Court noted that it was a matter of public record that January 16, 2016 was the date on which Defendant GSS was required to send out ballots for the 2016 Georgia primary. Plaintiffs did not file their Complaint until January 28, 2016.
On February 9, 2016 plaintiffs filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s February 5, 2016 Order, which the Court denied the following month,
While the plaintiffs’ February 5, 2016 Motion for Reconsideration was pending, plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit as to the U.S. District Court’s October 8, 2016 Order denying plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Permanent Injunction. On March 17, 2016, Defendant SSG filed a Motion to Dismiss the appeal on the grounds that it was moot because the date of the 2016 Georgia presidential primary (March 1, 2016) had passed, but this was never considered by the Eleventh Circuit. Plaintiffs/Appellants filed a Motion to Dismiss the appeal with prejudice on March 23, 2016, and on April 1, 2016 the Eleventh Circuit issued an Order granting the dismissal.
In the U.S. District Court matter, on April 11, 2016 Defendant SSG filed a Motion to Dismiss on the grounds that the plaintiffs had failed to state a claim and on April 20, 2016 Defendant DPG filed a separate Motion to Dismiss. On April 22, 2016 the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal, Stipulation of Dismissal Without Prejudice which the Court approved on April 22, 2016.
The case is closed.
Summary Authors
Shannon Sweeney (9/20/2024)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5303045/parties/de-la-fuente-v-kemp/
Raffauf, J. M. (Georgia)
Anderson, Julia B. (Georgia)
Correia, Cristina (Georgia)
Heidt, Josiah Benjamin (Georgia)
Jablonski, Michael King (Georgia)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5303045/de-la-fuente-v-kemp/
Last updated Sept. 11, 2025, 3:47 a.m.
State / Territory: Georgia
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Law Firm Antiracism Alliance (LFAA) project
Key Dates
Filing Date: Jan. 28, 2016
Closing Date: April 22, 2016
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Roque De La Fuente, a presidential candidate, and 3 individual residents of Georgia who are eligible to vote in a federal election
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: Unknown
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Secretary of State of Georgia, State
The Democratic Party of Georgia, State
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Title VI, Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq.
Constitutional Clause(s):
Due Process: Procedural Due Process
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Defendant
Nature of Relief:
Source of Relief:
Order Duration: 2016 - 2016
Issues
Voting: