David Wilson v. Gerald Birnberg, 667 F.3d 591

Wilson sought a Democratic primary ballot slot in Harris County (2010); his application required a residential address under Tex. Elec. Code §141.031(a)(4)(I).
Four days after filing late, Harris County Democratic Party Chair Birnberg denied certification citing the address, rejecting the ballot placement under §141.032(e).
Wilson filed suit in Sept. 2010 under 42 U.S.C. §1983 alleging denial of ballot access and violations of Due Process, Equal Protection, and later a facial challenge to §141.032; district court dismissed for failure to state a claim.
District court treated three complaints as substantially similar; on appeal, court addressed whether amendment/leave requirements were satisfied and whether any claim could survive under Bell Atlantic/Iqbal standards.
Court granted rehearing, withdrew prior opinion, and remanded in part for further factual development on the equal protection claim against Birnberg.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Wilson states a plausible equal protection claim against Birnberg	Birnberg treated Wilson differently due to alleged animus from criticism of the mayor	Birnberg’s actions were non-discriminatory application of election law and not intentional discrimination	Equal protection claim reversed and remanded for fact-finding on discriminatory intent
Whether Wilson has a procedural due process claim against Birnberg	Wilson had a property interest in ballot access	Public office is not a property interest; no due process violation	Dismissal upheld; no property interest in running for office; procedural due process claim fails
Whether the Texas election statute §141.032(e) provides adequate due process	Statute lacks hearing or adequate process before rejection	Statute provides immediate written notice and opportunity to seek relief	Statute constitutional; adequate process under Matthews framework
Whether Wilson’s claims warrant equitable relief, including injunctive relief against the 2010 election	Equitable relief is necessary to remedy ongoing rights violations	Election has passed; capable-of-repetition possible but unlikely to warrant extraordinary relief	No equitable relief; equal protection claim governs damages analysis; mootness/non-cognizable for equitable relief

Twombly, Bell Atl. Corp. v. (Barouch), 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility standard applies to complaint sufficiency)
Iqbal, Ashcroft v., 129 S. Ct. 1937 (U.S. 2009) (clarified plausibility standard for pleadings)
Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (U.S. 1983) (ballot access rights balanced against state interests; fundamental rights analysis)
Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (U.S. 1992) (balancing test for ballot-access burdens)
Snowden v. Hughes, 321 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1944) (historical treatment of public office as not property or liberty in DP analysis)
Williams v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. Sys. of Ga., 629 F.2d 993 (5th Cir. 1980) (no constitutional right to run for state office under Fourteenth Amendment)
Kucinich v. Tex. Democratic Party, 563 F.3d 161 (5th Cir. 2009) (election-law mootness considerations; capable-of-repetition exceptions discussed)
Gold v. Feinberg, 101 F.3d 796 (2d Cir. 1996) (state-law remedies may preclude §1983 claim absent willful action)
Matthews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (U.S. 1976) (three-factor due-process balancing for process due)
Lopez v. City of Houston, 617 F.3d 336 (5th Cir. 2010) (exceptional remedy not warranted absent rights violations)