Chong Su Yi v. Democratic National Committee, 666 F. App'x 279

Chong Su Yi, proceeding pro se, filed a civil complaint in forma pauperis challenging denial of his ability to vote in Maryland primary elections as a registered independent.
District court dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); the dismissal did not specify whether it was with or without prejudice.
Yi argued on appeal that § 1915(e)(2) is unconstitutionally vague and broad, violating due process and access to courts, and that his complaint stated a valid claim.
The Fourth Circuit reviewed both the statute’s application and the merits: abuse of discretion standard for frivolousness dismissals and de novo for failure-to-state-a-claim dismissals under Rule 12(b)(6) standards.
The court found Yi’s pleading sparse and difficult to decipher but construed it liberally as alleging that party-controlled primaries excluded independents and thus violated his constitutional rights (including references to the Fifteenth Amendment).
The panel modified the district court’s order to show dismissal was without prejudice, and affirmed the dismissal on the merits for failure to state a claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Constitutionality of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (vagueness/overbreadth; due process/access to courts)	§ 1915(e)(2) is vague, overbroad, and deprived Yi of process and access to courts.	Statute reflects longstanding authority to dismiss frivolous suits; standards for frivolousness and pleading are well-established.	Court rejected Yi’s constitutional challenge; standards are well understood. Dismissal modified to be without prejudice.
Whether Yi stated a viable claim that exclusion from party primaries violated his constitutional voting rights	Yi alleged being barred from Maryland primary voting as an independent; claimed racial/15th Amendment implications.	Party selection rules do not give a constitutional right to participate in a party’s nominating process; exclusion from a party’s internal primary does not violate the Constitution on the facts alleged.	Complaint failed to state a claim; independent voters lack a constitutional right to participate in another group’s nominating primary.

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989) (frivolous complaints may be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and lack an arguable basis in law or fact)
Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296 (1989) (§ 1915 authorizes dismissal of frivolous or malicious in forma pauperis actions)
Nagy v. FMC Butner, 376 F.3d 252 (4th Cir. 2004) (dismissals under § 1915(e)(2)(B) should be without prejudice)
De’Lonta v. Johnson, 708 F.3d 520 (4th Cir. 2013) (Rule 12(b)(6) standards apply to § 1915 dismissals for failure to state a claim)
White v. White, 886 F.2d 721 (4th Cir. 1989) (dismissal without prejudice permits plaintiff to cure pleading deficiencies)
California Democratic Party v. Jones, 530 U.S. 567 (2000) (no constitutional right to participate in the candidate-selection process of a group to which one does not belong)
South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301 (1966) (Voting Rights Act enacted to eliminate racial discrimination in voting)