Filed Date: Oct. 24, 2022
Closed Date: May 24, 2023
Clearinghouse coding complete
This is a case about election integrity in California.
On October 24, 2022, the pro se plaintiff commenced this action in the United States District Court of Southern California, filing suit against the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Diego and various Supervisors of the County of San Diego. The plaintiff, a resident and voter of San Diego County, filed a complaint alleging that California's use of electronic voting software did not guarantee that one's vote would be counted accurately, in violation of the California Constitution, California election law, and the United States Constitution. The plaintiff requested a temporary restraining order prohibiting various officials of San Diego County from destroying the November 2020 election data and from using electronic voting machines until a thorough investigation of the software and its Trapdoor vulnerabilities can be completed. The plaintiff also requested injunctive relief that Defendants only use physical ballots in all following elections.
On October 28, 2022, the Court issued an order denying the plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order. The Court found that the plaintiff had not effectuated service of the summonses and complaint upon each defendant and that plaintiff’s complaint and/or temporary restraining order lacks any allegation as to why notice should not be required for the temporary restraining order. As such, plaintiff failed to meet the Rule 65(b) requirements for granting a temporary restraining order and plaintiff did not demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits.
On November 22, 2022, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss based on the fact that plaintiff lacked standing to bring the claims, the claims are barred by the doctrine of laches and were moot, and plaintiff’s complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
On January 11, 2023, the Court issued an order to the plaintiff to show cause regarding the dismissal of the case. Plaintiff failed to file its opposition to the motion to dismiss by the stated deadline and failed to file a request for an extension of time to do so. If plaintiff failed to file its motion by the stated deadline, then defendant’s motion to dismiss would be granted.
On May 24, 2023, the Court issued an order granting defendant’s motion to dismiss because plaintiff lacked standing to sue in federal court and the Court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the matter. On May 24, 2023, a judgment was entered that granted the dismissal of defendant’s motion to dismiss.
This case is now closed.
Summary Authors
LFAA (2/6/2025)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/65634202/parties/vent-v-fletcher/
Vent, Kristen (California)
Uhler, Austin (California)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/65634202/vent-v-fletcher/
Last updated March 9, 2025, 10:53 a.m.
State / Territory: California
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Law Firm Antiracism Alliance (LFAA) project
Key Dates
Filing Date: Oct. 24, 2022
Closing Date: May 24, 2023
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
a resident and registered voter of San Diego County, California
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: Yes
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Nathan Fletcher (San Diego, San Diego), County
Nora Vargas (San Diego, San Diego), County
Terra Lawson Remer (San Diego, San Diego), County
Jim Desmond (San Diego, San Diego), County
Joel Anderson (San Diego, San Diego), County
Cynthia Paes (San Diego), County
Michael Vu (San Diego), County
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Constitutional Clause(s):
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Defendant
Nature of Relief:
Source of Relief:
Issues
Voting: