Filed Date: March 31, 2020
Closed Date: Nov. 20, 2020
Clearinghouse coding complete
COVID-19 Summary: This pro se lawsuit was filed on March 31, 2020, by a prospective candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives seeking monetary damages and changes to Oklahoma’s requirements for gaining access to the ballot in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. On November 2, 2020, the court dismissed the case after a motion by the defendant.
This case is about the constitutionality of the State of Oklahoma’s ballot requirements in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. The plaintiff, a prospective candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives, sued the State of Oklahoma pro se in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma on March 31, 2020, arguing that the requirement that he either pay a filing fee or gather in-person signatures to gain access to the ballot, violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights to equal protection by financially discriminating against him. The plaintiff, suing under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, requested a temporary restraining order and a permanent injunction against the enforcement of the state’s ballot access laws, in addition to economic damages equaling the salary of a member of the U.S. House of Representatives. The case was assigned to Judge Jodi W. Dishman.
On April 14, 2020, the plaintiff moved for a temporary restraining order. Between April 14 and April 22, the plaintiff moved to amend the complaint to join additional defendants to the lawsuit. On June 10, the court filed an order striking the three motions to amend and instructed the plaintiff that he did not need the court’s permission to amend the complaint as long as he met the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1).
On July 9, 2020, the State of Oklahoma moved to dismiss the case. On July 15, the plaintiff moved for a default judgment and for a preliminary injunction. On the same day, the court filed an order striking the plaintiffs’ two motions for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(a), which requires that all filings with the court be signed by at least one attorney of record or by the party personally if unrepresented. The court granted the plaintiff leave to sign the motions and refile them.
On July 29, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint and a motion for a preliminary injunction. The amended complaint changed the named defendant from the State of Oklahoma to an individual identified as a member of the Oklahoma State Election Board. The plaintiff also added information to the complaint detailing his status as a disabled veteran. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant physically stopped him from submitting his declaration for candidacy. The plaintiff reiterated his requests for monetary and injunctive relief, asking that the court require the defendant to pay him $384,000 in damages, as well as require the state to place him on the ballot without requiring fees or signatures.
On July 30, 2020, the court denied the plaintiff’s April 14 motion for temporary restraining order and the State of Oklahoma’s July 9 motion to dismiss as moot due to the filing of the amended complaint. On August 21, the court denied the plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction. The court stated that the plaintiff failed to comply with Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires notice to the adverse party prior to the court issuing a preliminary injunction. The court noted that the plaintiff had failed to submit any record of service of the motion for a preliminary injunction or the complaint on the defendant.
On August 28, the plaintiff filed another motion for a preliminary injunction. On September 11, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss the case. On September 18, the court invited the parties to file optional briefs on whether any of the claims in the case are moot because the plaintiff filed his amended complaint over three months after the deadline to file his Declaration of Candidacy.
On November 2, 2020, the court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss. 499 F. Supp. 3d 1080. The court noted that there was no dispute that the plaintiff did not satisfy either of the requirements to gain access to the state’s ballot for U.S. Representative: a petition supporting the candidate’s filing signed by at least two percent of the number of registered voters in the district or a $1,000 filing fee. First, the court addressed whether there remained a live controversy for the court to decide. The court found that the plaintiff’s claims were moot because the amended complaint was filed over three months over the filing deadline and because the plaintiff did not seek relief from the statutory deadlines. In addition, the court found that the plaintiff had not established that the defendant’s alleged conduct fell into the “capable of repetition, yet evading review” exception to the mootness doctrine. The exception requires that: (1) the duration of the challenged conduct is too short to be fully litigated prior to its cessation or expiration; and (2) there is a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party will be subjected to the same action again. The court concluded that there was no indication that the complications posed by COVID-19 to the election will be repeated in subsequent elections. Since the plaintiff’s constitutional claims for injunctive relief were moot and did not fit into an exception, the court dismissed these claims.
Next, the court addressed the plaintiff’s request for monetary relief and whether the defendant was immune from the plaintiff’s claims under the Eleventh Amendment. The court found that the Oklahoma State Election Board was immune from monetary damages under the Eleventh Amendment, which grants immunity to states from suits by their own citizens. The court found that this immunity extended to officers of a state agency, including the defendant, if he was sued in his official capacity as a member of the state’s election board. While the court noted that Ex Parte Young presents a possible exception to immunity, the court found that this exception only applies to declaratory and injunctive relief, rather than monetary damages. The court therefore concluded that the plaintiff’s claims against the defendant for monetary damages, if brought against him in his individual capacity, must be dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction due to sovereign immunity.
The court then analyzed whether the defendant could be sued for monetary damages in his individual capacity under the doctrine of qualified immunity. The court began its analysis by stating that qualified immunity shields government officials from money damages unless a plaintiff establishes that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right and that the right was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct. The court found that the plaintiff had not offered any clearly established law demonstrating that the defendant’s alleged conduct violated the plaintiff’s statutory or constitutional rights. The court stated that the plaintiff had failed to show that it was unreasonable for the defendant to refuse the plaintiff’s incomplete Declaration of Candidacy or that the defendant’s conduct was obviously egregious. The court therefore found that the defendant was entitled to qualified immunity against any claims for monetary relief against him in his individual capacity.
The case is now closed.
Summary Authors
Nicholas Gillan (12/22/2021)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17030409/parties/wright-v-ziriax/
Dishman, Jodi Warmbrod (Oklahoma)
Wright, Stephen Christopher (Oklahoma)
Singer, Desiree D. (Oklahoma)
Dishman, Jodi Warmbrod (Oklahoma)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17030409/wright-v-ziriax/
Last updated April 9, 2024, 3:06 a.m.
State / Territory: Oklahoma
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Healthy Elections COVID litigation tracker
Key Dates
Filing Date: March 31, 2020
Closing Date: Nov. 20, 2020
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
A prospective candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives from Oklahoma
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: Yes
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Constitutional Clause(s):
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Defendant
Nature of Relief:
Source of Relief:
Content of Injunction:
Issues
Voting: