Filed Date: Jan. 4, 2016
Closed Date: Jan. 12, 2018
Clearinghouse coding complete
This case is about whether Nevada Revised Statute 293.263, which required that candidates be listed alphabetically on ballots, violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by failing to provide constitutional protections to all candidates not listed first.
Plaintiff was an indigent, health-impaired retired businessman who was aspiring to run in the June 16, 2016 Democratic Party primary election to represent Nevada District 4 in the U.S. House of Representatives. Plaintiff filed this lawsuit on January 4, 2016 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada against Nevada Secretary of State, Barbara Cegavske (note: plaintiff misspelled Ms. Cegavske's last name as "Cegavsky" in the complaint and throughout this lawsuit), as well as other defendants who were later dropped from the lawsuit. Plaintiff proceeded pro se and also filed an in forma pauperis motion to proceed without fees or costs. This lawsuit was initially assigned to Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach before being transferred to Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey.
In his complaint, the plaintiff alleged that Nevada Revised Statute 293.263 violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by providing an unlawful advantage of up to 20% for candidates listed first on any ballot list. The complaint stated that it sought declaratory relief to determine the rights and obligations of parties involved in the relevant election; however, Judge Dorsey ultimately determined the relief being sought--i.e., compelling the Nevada Secretary of State to list candidates in a non-alphabetical order--was injunctive in nature.
On January 11, 2016, Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach granted the plaintiff's in forma pauperis motion but recommended that the complaint be dismissed with leave to amend for failure to state a claim. On March 23, 2016, Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey adopted the Magistrate Judge's recommendation, overruled the plaintiff's objections, and dismissed the plaintiff's complaint without prejudice.
On April 4, 2016, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint as well as a motion for preliminary injunction. Judge Dorsey denied this motion for preliminary injunction on April 12, 2014, concluding that plaintiff's amended complaint simply restates the claims set forth in the initial complaint. Furthermore, Judge Dorsey discovered that the plaintiff brought a nearly identical case against the Nevada Secretary of State in 1998, which was dismissed on summary judgment, and gave plaintiff two weeks to show cause as to why the case should not be dismissed under res judicata (i.e., the doctrine that a matter that has been adjudicated by a competent court may not be pursued further by the same parties). Plaintiff filed his response on April 25, 2016; Secretary of State, through counsel, filed her reply on April 26, 2016; and plaintiff filed an unauthorized sur-reply on April 29, 2016. Subsequently, plaintiff twice moved for a decision on the merits of his action--first, through a motion for summary adjudication filed on September 20, 2016, and, later, through a motion for summary judgment filed February 1, 2017.
On April 21, 2017, Judge Dorsey issued an Order dismissing the case with prejudice and denying plaintiff's motions as moot. Judge Dorsey explained that res judicata--and, specifically, claim preclusion (i.e., the doctrine that a final judgment forecloses successive litigation on the same claim,
whether or not relitigation of the claim raises the same issues as the earlier suit)--applied as plaintiff's claim was identical to the claim in his prior action, the claim in the prior action was finally adjudicated on its merits, the plaintiff was the same in both actions, and the defendants in both actions were in privity. Furthermore, Judge Dorsey rejected plaintiff's various arguments that she should craft an exception to the claim preclusion doctrine, including arguments based on the amount of time elapsed between the claims, societal changes, and the fact no monetary relief was being sought.
Plaintiff appealed the District Court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Circuit Court referred the question of whether plaintiff's in forma pauperis motion should continue to Judge Dorsey who, on May 17, 2017, determined that it should continue as plaintiff's request that the Circuit Court consider crafting an exception to the claim preclusion doctrine was made in good faith. On December 18, 2017, Circuit Judges J. Clifford Wallace, Barry Silverman, and Jay Bybee issued a memorandum fully affirming the District Court's decision. However, instead of citing to claim preclusion as Judge Dorsey did, the Circuit Court concluded that plaintiff's action was barred due to issue preclusion (i.e., the doctrine that successive litigation of a legal issue previously litigated and resolved was barred even if the issue recurs in the context of a different claim). The mandate and related District Court order effecting the Circuit Court's decision were entered on January 12, 2018. Plaintiff has not filed any objections or further appeals.
Summary Authors
Nathaniel Hsieh (8/28/2024)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4519158/parties/schaefer-v-cegavsky/
Dorsey, Jennifer Anna (Nevada)
Schaefer, Michael (Nevada)
Story, Lori M (Nevada)
Ferenbach, Cam
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4519158/schaefer-v-cegavsky/
Last updated Aug. 8, 2025, 7:12 a.m.
State / Territory: Nevada
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Law Firm Antiracism Alliance (LFAA) project
Key Dates
Filing Date: Jan. 4, 2016
Closing Date: Jan. 12, 2018
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
An indigent, health-impaired retired businessman who was aspiring to run in the June 16, 2016 Democratic Party primary election to represent Nevada District 4 in the U.S. House of Representatives.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: Yes
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Nevada Secretary of State, State
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Constitutional Clause(s):
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Defendant
Nature of Relief:
Source of Relief:
Issues
Voting: