DE LA FUENTE v. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, 1:16-cv-00470

Plaintiff Roque “Rocky” De La Fuente seeks placement on North Carolina’s 2016 presidential general-election ballot after losing the Democratic primary.
He failed to meet North Carolina’s petition signature requirement and missed the filing deadline for unaffiliated candidates.
De La Fuente asks the court to declare unconstitutional portions of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 163-122(a)(1) governing signature and timing requirements for unaffiliated candidates.
North Carolina’s “sore loser” statute, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 163-122(a), bars a candidate who lost a primary from running as an unaffiliated candidate for the same office in the same year. De La Fuente did not challenge that provision.
De La Fuente asserts he was nominated by the Reform Party after the primary, but the Reform Party had not qualified as a registered political party in North Carolina, so he remained unaffiliated.
The court dismissed the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because De La Fuente lacked standing and denied leave to amend as futile; the action was dismissed with prejudice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing / redressability	Striking the challenged petition/deadline provisions would allow De La Fuente on the ballot.	Even if those provisions were invalidated, the sore loser statute and party-status rules would still bar him.	Dismissed for lack of standing; plaintiff cannot show a favorable ruling would redress his injury.
Applicability of sore loser statute	Implicitly: De La Fuente contended post-primary party nomination (Reform Party) removed him from unaffiliated status.	The Reform Party had not met North Carolina’s new-party qualification requirements, so De La Fuente remained unaffiliated and subject to the sore loser statute.	Court found Reform Party not qualified; sore loser statute bars inclusion.
Leave to amend	Plaintiff sought leave to add state-board officials and Reform Party nomination facts.	Defendants argued amendments would not cure redressability defect and thus would be futile.	Leave denied as futile; proposed amendments would not change outcome.
Eleventh Amendment immunity (against State)	Plaintiff did not contest State immunity.	State asserted Eleventh Amendment immunity.	Claims against the State dismissed on Eleventh Amendment grounds.

White Tail Park, Inc. v. Stroube, 413 F.3d 451 (4th Cir. 2005) (standing burden at successive litigation stages and consideration of evidence on Rule 12(b)(1)).
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing requirements: injury in fact, causation, redressability).
McLaughlin v. N.C. Bd. of Elections, 65 F.3d 1215 (4th Cir. 1995) (upholding North Carolina signature requirement for new parties).
Pisano v. Strach, 743 F.3d 927 (4th Cir. 2014) (upholding North Carolina petition deadlines for new parties).
Fredericksburg & Potomac R.R. Co. v. United States, 945 F.2d 765 (4th Cir. 1991) (courts may consider evidence outside the pleadings on jurisdictional questions).
Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724 (1974) (upholding state sore-loser / ballot-access regulation principles).
Backus v. Spears, 677 F.2d 397 (4th Cir. 1982) (post-Storer treatment of sore-loser challenges).
Anand v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, 754 F.3d 195 (4th Cir. 2014) (denial of leave to amend where amendment is clearly futile).