United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Northern Division
RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
WALLACE CAPEL, JR., CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Pending
before the Court are the Motion to Dismiss filed by the
Alabama Attorney General, Alabama Secretary of State, and
Butler County Circuit Clerk (“State Defendants”)
(Doc. 13); Motion to Dismiss filed by the Butler County
Sheriff, Butler County Coroner, Butler County Probate Judge,
and Butler County Sheriff (“County Defendants”)
(Doc. 15); and Motion to Dismiss filed by the United States
Attorney General and United States Attorney for the Middle
District of Alabama (“Federal Defendants”) (Doc.
34). Plaintiff has responded to all motions (Docs. 31 and
37), and the County Defendants filed a reply (Doc. 33). This
case was referred to the undersigned United States Magistrate
Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 for further
proceedings and determination or recommendation as may be
appropriate. Doc. 3.
Upon
consideration of the above pending motions and for good cause
shown, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that this case be dismissed
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state
a claim upon which relief can be granted.
I.
BACKGROUND
This
case arises out of Plaintiff's candidacy for the position
of coroner in Butler County, Alabama. Doc. 1 at 1. Plaintiff
and Defendant Wayne Garlock were opponents in the March 2018
Democratic primary election. Doc. 13 at 2. Scott won the
primary election, but Garlock ran against Plaintiff as a
write-in candidate in the general election. Id. at
2. In the general election, Garlock received 3, 746 votes and
Scott received 3, 488 votes. Id. at 2- 3.
Plaintiff
claims he was elected as coroner because he received 3, 488
votes in addition to another 2, 335 Alabama Democratic Party
straight-party votes. Doc. 1 at 1. According to Defendants,
however, as with the all the other races, a party's
straight-ticket votes are included in each candidate's
total number of votes. Doc. 13 at 3. Plaintiff does not
allege and there are no records showing that he requested a
recount within forty-eight hours of the election results
pursuant to Ala. Code § 17-16-21 or that he filed an
election contest under Ala. Code § 17-16-40, et
seq., within twenty days of the announcement of election
results. Id. at 3.
In his
Complaint, Plaintiff claims the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, the Alabama Bureau of Investigation, the
Alabama Attorney General, and the Alabama Secretary of State
knew or should have known that he won the
election.[1] Id. He claims the following
offenses against him without identifying which Defendant
allegedly committed the offense: failure to acknowledge that
he is the elected coroner of Butler County; failure to award
him official access to the legal and lawful rights and
privileges due to be bestowed upon him; and failure and
refusal to inform the public and government officials that
the 2, 335 straight party votes plus the other 3, 488 votes
would be “more than enough [for him] to declare
victory.” Doc. 1-1. He further claims that the Federal
Defendants failed to protect his “politically elected
status rights.” Id. Finally, he claims that
the State and Federal Defendants failed to monitor and
“act in the motion of justice, ” thereby causing
others to violate his rights. Id. He purports to
bring this lawsuit pursuant to the 14th Amendment of the U.S.
Constitution, the U.S. Federal Common Human Rights, the U.S.
Public Accommodation Rights, and U.S. Equal Protection Rights
and Due Process. He also purports to bring state law claims
under Alabama Common Human Rights and Alabama Equal Access
Rights and Equal Protection Rights.[2] Id.
II.
DEFENDANTS' ARGUMENTS
The
County Defendants argue that the doctrines of federalism and
comity prevent this Court from having jurisdiction over
Plaintiff's claims and that federal jurisdiction over
election cases is limited to cases falling under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1344 (denial of the right to vote based on race,
color, or previous condition of servitude) or cases
sufficient to state a claim under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Doc. 16 at 3. They further argue that Plaintiff has failed to
state claims under any Alabama law. Id. at 6-7.
Finally, they argue that Defendant Garlock is entitled to
qualified immunity.
The
State Defendants argue that Plaintiff lacks standing to bring
this lawsuit - and therefore this court does not have
jurisdiction - because none of the Defendants have the
ability to remove a certified election winner and replace him
with a candidate who was not certified as the winner. Doc. 13
at 4. They further argue, to the extent Plaintiff seeks an
injunction requiring the Attorney General and Secretary of
State to follow state law, that the claims are barred by the
Eleventh Amendment, and federal courts lack jurisdiction to
compel state officials to follow state law. Id.
Finally, they assert that no federal cause of action exists
for a state election contest.
The
Federal Defendants argue that Plaintiff has not shown a
waiver of sovereign immunity, which prevents this Court from
having jurisdiction. Doc. 35 at 2. They further argue that,
even construing Plaintiff's Complaint broadly, Plaintiff
cannot proceed under a Bivens claim, a Writ of
Mandamus, or the Administrative Procedures Act. Id.
at 3-5. Finally, even if Plaintiff could establish
jurisdiction and a waiver of sovereign immunity,
Plaintiff's Complaint fails to state a claim on which
relief can be granted. The allegations against the Federal
Defendants are limited to a few conclusory and vague lines
that they failed to protect his voting rights and allowed
others to violate them, and Plaintiff cannot obtain his
requested relief - an order directing the Federal Defendants
to conduct a review and investigation of the election - under
any possible theory. Id. at 6-7.
III.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
When
ruling on a motion pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), “the
Court accepts the factual allegations in the complaint as
true and construes them in the light most favorable to the
plaintiff.” Speaker v. U.S. Dep't of Health
& Human Servs. Ctrs. for Disease Control &
Prevention, 623 F.3d 1371, 1379 (11th Cir. 2010). In
order to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, a
complaint must satisfy the pleading standard of Rule 8 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Rule 8
requires that a plaintiff submit a “short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled
to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). “[T]he pleading
standard Rule 8 announces does not require ‘detailed
factual allegations,' but it demands more than an
unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me
accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). In general, then, a pleading is
insufficient if it offers only mere “labels and
conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the
elements of a cause of action[.]” Twombly, 550
U.S. at 555. See also Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678
(quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557) (a complaint does
not suffice under Rule 8(a) “if it tenders ‘naked
assertion[s]' devoid of ‘further factual
enhancement.'”). Thus, in order to survive
Defendants' motions to dismiss, Plaintiff's Complaint
“must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as
true, to ‘state a claim for relief which is plausible
on its face.'” Urquilla-Diaz v. Kaplan
Univ., 780 F.3d 1039, 1051 (11th Cir. 2015) (quoting
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678). “A claim is factually
plausible where the facts alleged permit the court to
reasonably infer that the defendant's alleged misconduct
was unlawful. Factual allegations that are ‘merely
consistent with' a defendant's liability, however,
are not facially plausible.” Id. (quoting
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678).
“Determining
whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief [is]
. . . a context-specific task that requires the reviewing
court to draw on its judicial experience and common
sense.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679. If there are
“enough fact[s] to raise a reasonable expectation that
discovery will reveal evidence” that supports the
claims alleged in the complaint, then the claim is
“plausible” and the motion to dismiss should be
denied and discovery in support of the claims should
commence. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556. But, “Rule
8 . . . does not unlock the doors of discovery for a
plaintiff armed with nothing more than conclusions.”
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79. Ultimately, in assessing
the plausibility of a plaintiff's claims, the court is to
avoid conflating the sufficiency analysis with a premature
assessment of a plaintiff's likelihood of success because
a well-pleaded claim shall ...