Chong Yi v. Democratic National Committee

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 8:16-cv-01172-RWT Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999983730]. Mailed to: C Li. [16-1711]

Appeal: 16-1711

Doc: 10

Filed: 12/09/2016

Pg: 1 of 5

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1711

CHONG SU YI,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
DEMOCRATIC
COMMITTEE,

NATIONAL

COMMITTEE;

REPUBLICAN

NATIONAL

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, Senior District Judge.
(8:16-cv-01172-RWT)

Submitted:

November 7, 2016

Before KEENAN
Circuit Judge.

and

FLOYD,

Decided:

Circuit

Judges,

December 9, 2016

and

DAVIS,

Senior

Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Chong Su Yi, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-1711

Doc: 10

Filed: 12/09/2016

Pg: 2 of 5

PER CURIAM:
Chong

Su
his

dismissing
(2012).

Yi

civil

On

appeals

appeal,

unconstitutionally

from

complaint
Yi

broad

the
under

contends
and

district
28

first

vague

and

U.S.C.
that

that

rights to due process and access to courts.
that

his

complaint

stated

a

claim

on

court’s

order

§ 1915(e)(2)

§ 1915(e)(2)
it

violates

is
his

He further asserts

which

relief

may

be

granted.
The

Supreme

Court

has

long

recognized

the

established

principle that a patently frivolous complaint may be dismissed
for

want

of

subject

matter

jurisdiction.

See

Neitzke

v.

Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 n.6 (1989); see also Mallard v. U.S.
Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 307-08 (1989) (“Section 1915[(e)]
. . . authorizes courts to dismiss a ‘frivolous or malicious’
action, but there is little doubt they would have the power to
do

so

even

in

the

absence

of

this

statutory

provision.”).

Regarding the district court’s authority under the statute to
sua sponte dismiss in forma pauperis complaints that fail to
state a claim, Yi has not specified what process he was due, but
denied.

Because

dismissals

under

§

1915(e)(2)(B)

should

be

without prejudice, Nagy v. FMC Butner, 376 F.3d 252, 258 (4th
Cir. 2004), Yi is free to refile an amended complaint, and thus,
the dismissal of his complaint has not barred his right to seek
relief under a valid cause of action.
2

See White v. White, 886

Appeal: 16-1711

F.2d

Doc: 10

721,

Filed: 12/09/2016

724

(4th

Cir.

Pg: 3 of 5

1989)

(dismissal

without

prejudice

permits plaintiff “to cure any deficiencies in his pleading”).
In addition, while Yi claims the statute’s standards are vague
and too broad, the standards for stating a claim and for finding
frivolousness,
understood.

discussed

below,

are

longstanding

and

well

Yi’s claim that § 1915(e) is unconstitutional thus

is without merit.

However, because the district court did not

specify whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice, we
modify

the

dismissal

order

to

show

that

the

dismissal

was

we

for

without prejudice.
Turning

to

the

merits

of

Yi’s

complaint,

review

abuse of discretion a district court’s dismissal of a complaint
as

frivolous

This

court

failure

to

under

§ 1915(e)(2)(B).

reviews
state

de novo
a

claim

a

Nagy,

district

under

376

court’s

§ 1915,

F.3d

at

254.

dismissal

applying

the

for
same

standards as those for reviewing a Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)
dismissal.
2013).

See De’Lonta v. Johnson, 708 F.3d 520, 524 (4th Cir.
The

complaint

must

contain

sufficient

factual

allegations to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.

De’Lonta, 708 F.3d at 524 (citations and quotation marks

omitted).
A federal court is required to dismiss an in forma pauperis
case at any time the court determines the action is frivolous,
malicious,

fails

to

state

a

claim
3

on

which

relief

may

be

Appeal: 16-1711

Doc: 10

Filed: 12/09/2016

Pg: 4 of 5

granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune
from such relief.
action

as

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

frivolous

is

appropriate

arguable basis in law or fact.

when

the

Dismissal of an
action

lacks

an

Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325.

The district court accurately noted that Yi’s complaint was
difficult to decipher.

Yi appears to allege that his right to

vote in the Maryland primary elections was improperly denied
based on his status as a registered independent.

However, he

also mentions the Fifteenth Amendment and his status as a person
of color, * although he does not claim that persons of certain
races are more likely to register as independents.
Affording
alleged

that

Yi
his

liberal

construction,

constitutional

rights

we

conclude

were,

or

that
will

Yi
be,

violated when he is barred from voting in the primary elections
in

Maryland

Democratic

due

to

National

his

failure

Committee

or

*

to

align
the

with

either

Republican

the

National

The Fifteenth Amendment as applied through The Voting
Rights Act of 1965 (VRA) provides the basis for a claim of voter
disenfranchisement.
The Fifteenth Amendment prohibits the
states from denying or abridging the right to vote based upon
race, color or previous condition of servitude.
The VRA, as
amended in 1982, was originally enacted to work in tandem with
the
Fifteenth
Amendment
to
“rid
the
country
of
racial
discrimination in voting.”
See South Carolina v. Katzenbach,
383 U.S. 301, 315 (1966) (abrogated on other grounds). The VRA
prohibits any state practice that results in the “denial or
abridgement of the right . . . to vote on account of race or
color.” See 52 U.S.C. § 10301 (2012).

4

Appeal: 16-1711

Doc: 10

Committee.

Filed: 12/09/2016

However,

there

constitutional

a

to

candidate

which

[to

be

one

“in

does

not

California Democratic Party v. Jones, 530 U.S. 567,
(“Selecting

group

right

belong.”

(2000)

a

no

the

n.5

of

is

selecting

573

candidate

Pg: 5 of 5

nominated]

is

quite different from voting for the candidate of one’s choice
[who could take office].”).

Accordingly, Yi’s bare allegations

that, as an independent, he was excluded by the DNC and the RNC
from voting in their primary elections fail to state a claim.
Accordingly, we modify the district court’s order to show
that the dismissal was without prejudice and affirm the order as
modified.
legal

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

contentions

before this

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.
AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED

5