Germalic v. Aichele

Filing 5

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: The motion for injunctive relief contained in the complaint 1 is denied. The Clerk of Court shall close the file. Signed by Honorable Sylvia H. Rambo on 10/25/12. (ma)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JAMES R. GERMALIC,
Plaintiff
v.
CAROL AICHELE,
Defendant

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL NO. 1:12-CV-2100
(Judge Rambo)

MEMORANDUM
I.

Background
Before the court is James R. Germalic’s petition for an injunction to

stop the printing of ballots for the general election to be held on November 6, 2012.
Because this court considers this request to be a request for emergency relief, the
motion will be addressed without notice to the defendant and without a hearing. No
complaint has been filed in this action.1
Germalic claims that Pennsylvania is a large state and that he does not
have the ability to gather the number of signatures required in time to have his name
placed on the ballot. He claims that he cannot compete on a level playing field with
the other candidates and, therefore, he is not being treated equally. It appears that his
claim is a denial of equal protection.

Plaintiff has failed to pay the filing fee required to file an action in federal court nor has he
filed an application for leave to proceed without the payment of such fee. Absent one of these, this
court could have dismissed this matter without consideration of the petition on its merits.
1

II.

Discussion
A request for injunctive relief requires that the following four factors be

considered:
(1) whether the movant has shown a reasonable probability
of success on the merits; (2) whether the movant will be
irreparably injured by denial of the requested relief; (3)
whether the granting of preliminary relief will result in
even greater harm to the nonmoving party; and (4) whether
granting preliminary relief will be in the public interest.
American Express Travel Related Services, Inc. v. Sidamon-Eristoff, et al., 669 F.3d
359, 366 (3d Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). This court will analyze the instant
request against these standards.
A. Reasonable Probability of Success on the Merits
It appears that Germalic is alleging a denial of equal protection. The
Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment directs that all similarly
situated individuals be treated alike. City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473
U.S. 432, 439 (1985).
Two theories exist upon which a plaintiff may predicate an
equal protection claim: the traditional theory and the class
of one theory. The traditional theory protects individuals
from discriminatory treatment based upon membership in a
protected class such as race, national origin, religion or sex.
. . . Under the class-of-one theory, a plaintiff may advance
an equal protection claim absent membership in a protected
class if he or she shows irrational and intentional
differential treatment when compared with similarly
situated individuals.
Hynoski v. Columbia County Redevelopment Auth., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24794,
*8 (M.D. Pa. 2011) (citations omitted).
Germalic does not qualify for consideration under the traditional theory
because he is not a member of a protected class. Nor does Germalic qualify for
protection under the class-of-one theory. He has not been treated differently than
2

any other candidate running for office. All candidates are required to meet the
minimum number of signatures to be placed on the ballot in Pennsylvania. Thus, he
is not likely to succeed on the merits.
B. Irreparable Harm to the Plaintiff
The harm suffered by Germalic is that he will not be placed on the
Pennsylvania ballot for possible election in 2012. While this factor may be in his
favor, all other factors weigh against him in deciding on whether to grant an
injunction. Germalic knew of the qualifications to be placed on the ballot.
C. Harm to the Non-Moving Party
Extreme harm will occur to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, its
voters, and candidates. To grant relief would require reprinting of ballots which
could not be accomplished by November 6, 2012. To grant an injunction would
disenfranchise the voters since new ballots cannot be reprinted and the electronic
voting machines reprogrammed in time for the election. Furthermore, voters in the
Commonwealth and other candidates who have complied with the applicable election
rules would incur harm in the event that a non-compliant candidate be placed on the
ballot. Such an outcome would be tantamount to reverse discrimination against
those who have complied with the applicable rules.
D. Public Interest
For the same reasons set forth above, Germalic’s request is not in the
public interest.

3

III.

Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the motion for injunctive relief will be

denied. In addition, since no complaint has been filed in this action and no other
relief has been sought by the plaintiff, this case will be ordered to be closed. An
appropriate order will be issued.
s/Sylvia H. Rambo
United States District Judge
Dated: October 25, 2012.

4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JAMES R. GERMALIC,
Plaintiff
v.
CAROL AICHELE,
Defendant

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL NO. 1:12-CV-2100
(Judge Rambo)

ORDER
For the reasons set forth in the accompanying memorandum of law, IT
IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the motion for injunctive relief is denied. The
Clerk of Court shall close the file.
s/Sylvia H. Rambo
United States District Judge
Dated: October 25, 2012.