South Carolina Cases February 10, 2023: Zigmantanis v. McMaster

Case Description

1

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

PAIGE J. GOSSETT, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

The above-named plaintiffs, proceeding pro se , filed this civil action seeking injunctive relief related to South Carolina's election procedures. This matter is before the court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.) for a Report and Recommendation on the motions to dismiss filed by Defendants the Honorable Governor Henry McMaster and Marci Andino, the former Executive Director of the State Election Commission. (ECF Nos. 30 & 36.) Pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), the court advised the plaintiffs of the summary judgment and dismissal procedures and the possible consequences if they failed to respond adequately to the defendants' motions. (ECF No. 33 & 38.) The plaintiffs filed responses in opposition to the motions (ECF Nos. 44 & 45), and the defendants filed replies (ECF Nos. 46 & 47). Having reviewed the record presented and the applicable law, the court finds the defendants' motions should be granted.

2

BACKGROUND

The following allegations are taken as true for purposes of resolving the defendants' motions to dismiss. The plaintiffs bring this action under a variety of federal and state constitutional and statutory provisions, claiming that South Carolina's voting and election systems are unlawful. In particular, the plaintiffs claim that South Carolina's use of electronic voting machines prevents the state from reliably counting votes and exposes voters' confidential information. The plaintiffs ask the court to enjoin South Carolina's use of its current voting machines, end its partnership with federal agencies, require paper ballots and same-day voting, disband county election commissions, require that the office of the South Carolina Secretary of State remain an elected position, and decertify elections held since 2020.

As to Governor McMaster, the plaintiffs' Amended Complaint lists the Governor as a defendant in the caption but does not include any specific allegations about him. Similarly, as to Andino, the former Executive Director of the State Election Commission, the Amended Complaint asserts only that at the time Andino was the Executive Director, she left a positive review of a software vendor used by the state in its election process. (Am. Compl. ¶ 127, ECF No. 13 at 39.)

DISCUSSION

A. Rule 12(b)(6) Standard

A motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) examines the legal sufficiency of the facts alleged on the face of the complaint. Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 243 (4th Cir. 1999). To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, “[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). The “complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.' ” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)

3

(quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). A claim is facially plausible when the factual content allows the court to reasonably infer that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Id. When considering a motion to dismiss, the court must accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). The court “may also consider documents attached to the complaint, see Fed.R.Civ.P. 10(c), as well as those attached to the motion to dismiss, so long as they are integral to the complaint and authentic.” Philips v. Pitt Cty. Mem'l Hosp., 572 F.3d 176, 180 (4th Cir. 2009) (citing Blankenship v. Manchin, 471 F.3d 523, 526 n.1 (4th Cir. 2006)).

Further, while the federal court is charged with liberally construing a complaint filed by pro se litigants to allow the development of a potentially meritorious case, see, e.g., Erickson, 551 U.S. 89, the requirement of liberal construction does not mean that the court can ignore a clear failure in the pleadings to allege facts which set forth a federal claim, nor can the court assume the existence of a genuine issue of material fact where none exists. Weller v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 901 F.2d 387 (4th Cir. 1990).

B. Defendants' Motions

Governor McMaster and Andino argue that the plaintiffs fail to state a claim against them upon which relief can be granted. Specifically, they argue that the plaintiffs fail to expressly raise a cognizable legal cause of action against them, and even if they did, the Amended Complaint is devoid of facts that would support any legal claim for relief. The court agrees.

4

Initially, the court notes that the plaintiffs' Amended Complaint, while lengthy and factually detailed, fails to provide fair notice to the defendants as to what claims the plaintiffs raise against them, and what facts the plaintiffs rely upon to support those claims. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require:

A pleading that states a claim for relief must contain:

(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction, unless the court already has jurisdiction and the claim needs no new jurisdictional support;

(2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief; and

(3) a demand for the relief sought, which may include relief in the alternative or different types of relief.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). In their Amended Complaint, the plaintiffs provide a list of “constitutional questions,” (ECF No. 13 at 16-18), cite to various federal and state statutes and constitutional provisions throughout the pleading, and make allegations about deficiencies in the state's voting system. However, the plaintiffs do not expressly list what legal causes of action they raise in this case, and importantly, they do not explain which allegations in the pleading are meant to support those causes of action. Considering the length and complexity of the plaintiffs' pleading, the court finds that the Amended Complaint violates Rule 8's requirement that the plaintiffs provide “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has previously found that pleadings such as the plaintiffs' Amended Complaint violate Rule 8. For example, in North Carolina v. McCuirt, the Fourth Circuit stated,

The complaint before us is both long and complex and fails to state its claims clearly enough for the defendants to know how to defend themselves.... It is virtually impossible to separate the legally significant from the legally insignificant facts in this factual background and then to match them with claims purportedly made in the complaint.

5

[S]imply to discover who is being charged in each count becomes indeterminate.

[T]he complaint in its present form does not permit the defendants to figure out what legally sufficient claim the plaintiffs are making and against whom they are making it. Accordingly, we readily conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing plaintiffs' complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to comply with Rule 8(a).

North Carolina v. McGuirt, 114 Fed.Appx. 555, 558-59 (4th Cir. 2004). Similarly, here, the plaintiffs' Amended Complaint does not allow the defendants to determine what causes of action the plaintiffs raise against them, nor does it reveal what allegations the plaintiffs rely upon to support those claims. Consequently, the court concludes that on that basis alone, the Amended Complaint fails to state a claim against Governor McMaster and Andino upon which relief can be granted.

Further, as explained in their motions, the plaintiffs' Amended Complaint fails to allege facts specific to Governor McMaster and Andino that could plausibly state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (stating Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 does not require detailed factual allegations, but it requires more than a plain accusation that the defendant unlawfully harmed the plaintiff, devoid of factual support). As previously explained, the plaintiffs mention Andino only once in the body of the Amended Complaint, and do not mention Governor McMaster. And importantly, the plaintiffs seek only injunctive relief from

6

state officials, but they fail to make allegations that could plausibly show that Governor McMaster and Andino have the authority to enforce the injunctive relief they seek. See generally Doyle v. Hogan, 1 F.4th 249, 255 (4th Cir. 2021) (stating that a state official may only be sued in federal court for prospective injunctive relief if the official is able to enforce the specific law the plaintiff challenges). Consequently, Governor McMaster and Andino should be dismissed for the plaintiffs' failure to state a claim against them upon which relief can be granted.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing, the court recommends that the defendants' motions to dismiss be granted. (ECF Nos. 30 & 36.)

The parties' attention is directed to the important notice on the next page.

7

Notice of Right to File Objections to Report and Recommendation

The parties are advised that they may file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation with the District Judge. Objections must specifically identify the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections are made and the basis for such objections. “[I]n the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must ‘only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.' ” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 advisory committee's note).

Specific written objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); see Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(a), (d). Filing by mail pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5 may be accomplished by mailing objections to:

Robin L. Blume, Clerk

United States District Court

901 Richland Street

Columbia, South Carolina 29201

Failure to timely file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation will result in waiver of the right to appeal from a judgment of the District Court based upon such Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984).