Roque De La Fuente v. Secretary of State for the State of Georgia
679 F. App'x 932
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Roque De La Fuente sought to place a presidential slate of electors on Georgia’s 2016 ballot but missed the filing deadline calculated under O.C.G.A. § 21-2-132(d)(1) (deadline fell on July 1, 2016).
- Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp rejected De La Fuente’s slate, excluding him from the 2016 ballot.
- De La Fuente sued, seeking emergency mandamus, a preliminary injunction, permanent injunction, and a declaratory judgment that the Georgia deadline statute is unconstitutional (as applied to presidential electors).
- The district court denied De La Fuente’s emergency mandamus and preliminary injunction motions; De La Fuente appealed the denials. A separate motion to dismiss remained pending in the district court.
- On appeal, the panel considered mootness given the passage of the 2016 election and whether De La Fuente had shown entitlement to a preliminary injunction for future presidential elections.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness re: 2016 election | De La Fuente wanted injunction against enforcement for 2016 election | Kemp: 2016 election passed so relief for that election is impossible | Moot as to 2016; appeal of that portion dismissed |
| Mootness/relevance for future elections | De La Fuente will run in 2020 and needs relief for future elections | Kemp: only past election affected; no live controversy for appellate relief | Claims for future elections not moot (live controversy remains) |
| Entitlement to preliminary injunction for future elections | De La Fuente argued statute burdens his right to ballot access and needs immediate relief | Kemp argued no immediate irreparable harm; court can decide permanent relief later | Denied: De La Fuente failed to show immediate irreparable harm required for a preliminary injunction |
| Appealability of mandamus denial | De La Fuente appealed district court’s denial of emergency mandamus relief | Kemp: interlocutory mandamus denial is not appealable | Dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction as to mandamus denial |
Key Cases Cited
- Brooks v. Ga. State Bd. of Elections, 59 F.3d 1114 (11th Cir.) (Article III mootness and effect of events while appeal pending)
- Hartford Cas. Ins. Co. v. Crum & Forster Specialty Ins. Co., 828 F.3d 1331 (11th Cir. 2016) (standard for abuse of discretion review)
- Wreal, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., 840 F.3d 1244 (11th Cir. 2016) (preliminary injunction is extraordinary relief; four-factor test)
- Alabama v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs, 424 F.3d 1117 (11th Cir.) (preliminary injunction limited to harms occurring before trial on the merits)
- Calagaz v. DeFries, 303 F.2d 588 (5th Cir.) (preliminary injunction requires certain, immediate, irreparable harm)
- Big Top Koolers, Inc. v. Circus-Man Snacks, 528 F.3d 839 (11th Cir.) (appellate court may affirm on any ground supported by the record)
- United States v. Willis, 649 F.3d 1248 (11th Cir. 2011) (issues not briefed on appeal are forfeited/waived)