Case: Duncan v. LaRose
2:20-cv-02295 | U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
Filed Date: May 6, 2020
Closed Date: Aug. 24, 2020
Clearinghouse coding complete
Case Summary
This case is about the constitutionality of Ohio’s ballot access laws. The plaintiff, an individual Ohio voter and repeated independent presidential candidate, filed this complaint pro se on May 6, 2020, against the Governor of Ohio, the Secretary of State of Ohio, and the Ohio General Assembly in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. The plaintiff sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, arguing that the state’s 5000 signature requirement and deadline of August 5 to appear on the November 2020 ballot violated his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights as applied during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The plaintiff argued that the enforcement of the signature requirement made it virtually impossible for him to get his name on the ballot without violating the Governor’s public health orders. The plaintiff also argued that the exclusion of his name from the ballot would deprive him of his ability to make his choice as a voter. He requested that the court declare the signature requirement unconstitutional, as applied to his candidacy. He also requested an injunction requiring the defendants to decrease the signature requirement or to place his name on the ballot despite his failing to meet the required number of signatures. The case was assigned to Judge Michael H. Watson.
On May 13, 2020, the plaintiff moved for an emergency preliminary injunction. The court denied the motion on May 15, 2020 WL 6600626. The court stated that the plaintiff’s motion did not warrant a complete review because it failed to comply with Local Rule 7.2(a)(1), which requires all motions to be accompanied by a supporting memorandum.
On May 29, 2020, the plaintiff filed another motion for a preliminary injunction. On June 3, the court held a telephone conference with the parties, during which the plaintiff was given an opportunity to provide additional information that would support the motion. At the end of the hearing, the court orally denied the motion. On June 4, the court issued an order providing more detailed reasoning and citations explaining its decision to deny the motion. 2020 WL 6600627. The court found it important that Ohio’s stay-at-home order, which the plaintiff argued hindered his ability to gather signatures, specifically exempted First Amendment-protected conduct and that the restrictions were currently being lifted. The court therefore found that the plaintiff was not likely to succeed on the merits of his claim.
Between June 2 and June 8, the defendants each filed motions to dismiss the case for failure to state a claim. On August 24, 2020, the court granted the motions to dismiss. 2020 WL 4933914. The court relied on a virtually identical case, Hawkins v. DeWine, 968 F.3d 603. The Hawkins court had concluded that the state’s justifications for the ballot restrictions outweighed the intermediate burden on the plaintiffs. Since the plaintiff here did not provide any basis for the court to distinguish this case from Hawkins, the court granted the motions to dismiss. The case is now closed.
Summary Authors
Nicholas Gillan (12/20/2021)
People
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17132308/parties/duncan-v-larose/
Deavers, Elizabeth Preston (Ohio)
Watson, Michael H. (Ohio)
Buchanan, Heather L. (Ohio)
Duncan, Richard (Ohio)
Watson, Halli B. (Ohio)
Documents in the Clearinghouse
Resources
Docket
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17132308/duncan-v-larose/
Last updated March 26, 2025, 9:05 a.m.
Case Details
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Healthy Elections COVID litigation tracker
Key Dates
Filing Date: May 6, 2020
Closing Date: Aug. 24, 2020
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
An individual Ohio voter who ran for U.S. President since 2004 in 4 elections
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: Yes
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
State
Ohio
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Ex parte Young (federal or state officials)
Constitutional Clause(s):
Due Process: Procedural Due Process
Other Dockets:
Southern District of Ohio 2:20-cv-02295
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Defendant
Relief Granted:
Source of Relief:
Content of Injunction:
Case Summary of Duncan v. LaRose, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, http://www.dev.clearinghouse.net/case/17980/ (last updated 12/20/2021).