Gwendolyn Mingo v. Daniel Baxter

Filing

Per Curiam OPINION filed : AFFIRMED, decision not for publication. R. Guy Cole , Jr., Circuit Judge; Deborah L. Cook, Circuit Judge and David A. Katz, U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Ohio, sitting by designation.

Case: 12-2368

Document: 006111662818

Filed: 04/19/2013

Page: 1

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 13a0394n.06
No. 12-2368

FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
GWENDOLYN MINGO,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
DANIEL BAXTER, Director of Elections of
the City of Detroit,
Defendant-Appellee.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Apr 19, 2013
DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk

ON APPEAL FROM THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE EASTERN
DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

BEFORE: COLE and COOK, Circuit Judges; KATZ, District Judge.*

PER CURIAM. Gwendolyn Mingo, a Michigan citizen, appeals through counsel a district
court order dismissing her civil rights complaint, filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, for failure to
state a claim.
Mingo ran for election for the citizens district council in the district of her residence. She
voted early by absentee ballott. She then filed a change of address form, indicating that she lived
in a different district, and ran as a write-in candidate for the citizens district council of that district.
She voted in that election on the date of the election. The defendant, the director of elections of the
city of Detroit, disqualified Mingo as a candidate in the first district on the ground that she was no

*

The Honorable David A. Katz, United States District Judge for the Northern District of
Ohio, sitting by designation.

Case: 12-2368

Document: 006111662818

Filed: 04/19/2013

Page: 2

No. 12-2368
Mingo v. Baxter
longer a resident. She would otherwise have won a seat on the council based on the vote count.
Mingo did not win a seat in the second district.
Mingo filed a complaint against defendant, claiming that he deprived her of her right to be
elected in the first district without due process. The district court dismissed the complaint pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) for failure to state a claim.
Upon review, we conclude that this complaint was properly dismissed for failure to state a
claim, as it did not set forth facts stating a plausible claim for relief. See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007) (A well-pleaded complaint requires “enough facts to state a claim to relief
that is plausible on its face.”).
Mingo argues on appeal that the dismissal was improper because she was deprived of her
right to vote, a fundamental right, citing League of Women Voters of Ohio v. Brunner, 548 F.3d 463,
476 (6th Cir. 2008). This was not the claim set forth in her complaint; she raised only a claim of
being deprived of the right to hold elective office. We do not address on appeal arguments that were
not raised in the district court. Barner v. Pilkington N. Am., Inc., 399 F.3d 745, 749 (6th Cir. 2005).
The district court correctly concluded that Mingo had no due process claim because she had no
property interest in being an elected official. See Kurita v. State Primary Bd. of Tenn. Democratic
Party, 472 F. App’x 398, 398 (6th Cir. 2012); Velez v. Levy, 401 F.3d 75, 87 (2d Cir. 2005).
Accordingly, the district court’s order dismissing this complaint is affirmed.

-2-