North Carolina Cases May 17, 2022: Sharma v. Circosta
Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of North Carolina
Date: May 17, 2022
Case Description
1
SIDDHANTH SHARMA, Plaintiff,
v.
DAMON CIRCOSTA, in his official capacity as Chair of the North Carolina State Board of Elections, STELLA ANDERSON, in her official capacity as a member of the North Carolina State Board of Elections, JEFF CARMON, in his official capacity as a member of the North Carolina State Board of Elections, STACY EGGERS IV, in his official capacity as a member of the North Carolina State Board of Elections, TOMMY TUCKER, in his official capacity as a member of the North Carolina State Board of Elections, KAREN BRINSON BELL, in her official capacity as the Executive Director of the North Carolina State Board of Elections, the NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF ELECTIONS, Defendants.
No. 5:22-CV-59-BO
United States District Court, E.D. North Carolina, Western Division
May 17, 2022
ORDER
TERRENCE W. BOYLE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
This cause comes before the Court on plaintiffs pro se motion [DE 40] requesting to raise a counterclaim and asking for a temporary restraining order. For the reasons that follow, the motion is denied without prejudice.
The Court dispenses with a full recitation of the background of this matter and incorporates by reference, as if fully set forth herein, the factual and procedural background of this matter outlined in its order entered May 16, 2022. In its May 16 order, the Court dismissed plaintiffs
2
complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff filed the instant motion on the same day the May 16 order was signed and judgment was entered in this case.
Plaintiffs instant motion contains a duplicative request for a temporary restraining order, which has previously been denied twice. The instant motion brings a "counter claim" in the form of challenging: Article VI, § 2, Clause 3 of the North Carolina Constitution; Article VI, § 8 of the North Carolina Constitution; N.C. Gen. Stat. § 163-55; § 163-82.1; § 163-106.1; §163-106(e); § 163-106.5(b); and § 163-127.3 et seq. Plaintiffs instant motion does not cure the jurisdictional deficiency found in the Court's May 16 order [DE 38], Namely, the Court previously found that plaintiff lacked standing because plaintiff had not asserted an injury. See Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330, 338-39 (2016). Plaintiff does not assert a concrete injury in his latest filing. See Clapper v. Amnesty, Int'l USA, 568 U.S. 398, 410 (2013). Since the case has been dismissed, no relief can be granted. Plaintiffs motion [DE 40] is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
SO ORDERED.