Germalic v. Secretary of State of Illinois

Filing 5

OPINION (See Written Opinion): 1.Plaintiff's petition to proceed in forma pauperis is denied (d/e 4 ) because he fails to state a federal claim for relief. THIS CASE IS CLOSED. 2.If Plaintiff wishes to appeal this dismissal, he must file a n otice of appeal with this court within 30 days of the entry of judgment. Fed.R.App.P. 4(a). A motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis should set forth the issues Plaintiff plans to present on appeal. See Fed.R.App.P. 24(a)(1)(C). Entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 10/30/2012. (VM, ilcd) Modified on 10/31/2012 to correct signature date (VM, ilcd).

E-FILED

Wednesday, 31 October, 2012 08:50:19 AM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
JAMES GERMALIC, Independent
Candidate for President,
Plaintiff,
v.
JESSE WHITE,
Secretary of State, Illinois,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 12-3288

OPINION
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH, U.S. District Judge:
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis (d/e 4) on his claim that Illinois Secretary of State, Jesse White,
violated the Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. For the reasons that follow, Plaintiff’s
Motion is DENIED and his claim DISMISSED.
The “privilege to proceed without posting security for costs and fees is
reserved to the many truly impoverished litigants who, within the District Court’s
sound discretion, would remain without legal remedy if
such privilege were not afforded to them.” Brewster v. North Am. Van Lines, Inc.,
461 F.2d 649, 651 (7th Cir. 1972). Additionally, a court must dismiss cases
proceeding in forma pauperis “at any time” if the action is frivolous, malicious, or

fails to state a claim, even if part of the filing fee has been paid. 28 U.S.C. §
1915(d)(2). Accordingly, this Court grants leave to proceed in forma pauperis only
if the complaint states a federal claim.
LEGAL STANDARD
To state a claim, the allegations must set forth a “short and plain statement
of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2).
Factual allegations must give enough detail to provide “fair notice of what the . . .
claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” EEOC v. Concentra Health Serv.,
Inc., 496 F.3d 773, 776 (7th Cir. 2007) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (add’l citation omitted)). The factual “allegations must
plausibly suggest that the plaintiff has a right to relief, raising that possibility
above a ‘speculative level.’” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). “A claim
has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court
to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct
alleged . . . . Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by
mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937,
1949 (2009) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-56). However pro se pleadings are
liberally construed when applying this standard. Bridges v. Gilbert, 557 F.3d 541,
546 (7th Cir. 2009).
Page 2 of 5

ANALYSIS
Liberally construed, Plaintiff attempts to allege in his Complaint that
Secretary of State White violated Plaintiff’s First and Fourteenth Amendment
Rights by imposing obstacles in Illinois that make it too onerous to be placed on
the ballot as a candidate for President of the United States. See 42 U.S.C. 1983
(providing plaintiffs a cause of action where the conduct of a person acting under
the color of state law violates a right protected by the United States Constitution or
created by federal statute). Specifically, Plaintiff characterizes Illinois’ 25,000
signature requirement as too onerous and expensive. Further, he argues that
registering in all 110 Illinois voting jurisdictions poses too great of an obstacle for
prospective write-in candidates. See Illinois 2012 Candidates Guide for
Presidential Preference, Delegates & Alternate Delegates (Amended 2/23/12), at
11.
However, Plaintiff fails to sufficiently allege that Secretary of State White
“deprived [Plaintiff of] a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United
States, and that the alleged deprivation was committed under color of state law.”
Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sullivan, 526 U.S. 40, 49-50, 119 S.Ct. 977, 143
L.Ed.2d 130 (1999) (providing allegations required to state a claim under 42
U.S.C. § 1983); Case v. Milewski, 327 F.3d 564, 566 (7th Cir. 2003). Instead,
Page 3 of 5

Plaintiff argues that the “little guy” has no opportunity to participate as a candidate
for President of the United States. Compl. at 4. Plaintiff then provides a lengthy
discussion that covers his religious, political, historical, and personal views.
Finally, Plaintiff’s issues have already been addressed. For example, the
Seventh Circuit has held that the 25,000 signature requirement does not violate the
First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. See Nader v.
Keith, 385 F.3d 729, 731-35 (7th Cir. 2004). Furthermore, the United States
Supreme Court has held that “[w]hen a State’s ballot access laws pass
constitutional muster as imposing only reasonable burdens on First and Fourteenth
Amendment rights . . . a prohibition on write-in voting will be presumptively valid
. . . .” Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428, 441 (1992). In short, even with the most
liberal construction, Plaintiff’s extended discussion of his religious, historical,
political, and personal views fails to state a plausible claim against the Secretary of
State upon which relief may be granted. See Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1.

Plaintiff’s petition to proceed in forma pauperis is denied

(d/e 4) because he fails to state a federal claim for relief. THIS CASE IS
CLOSED.
2.

If Plaintiff wishes to appeal this dismissal, he must file a
Page 4 of 5

notice of appeal with this court within 30 days of the entry of judgment.
Fed.R.App.P. 4(a). A motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis should set forth
the issues Plaintiff plans to present on appeal. See Fed.R.App.P. 24(a)(1)(C).
ENTERED: October 30, 2012
FOR THE COURT
s/ Sue E. Myerscough
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH
UNITED STATE DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 5 of 5