Case ID: f-appx_466/html/0054-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

James Richard GERMALIC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NEW YORK State BOARD OF ELECTIONS COMMISSIONERS, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 11-1590-cv.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    April 4, 2012.
    
      James Richard Germalic, Parma, OH, pro se.
    Paul M. Collins, Deputy Special Counsel, New York State Board of Elections, Albany, NY, for Appellees.
    PRESENT: ROBERT D. SACK, REENA RAGGI and CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff James Richard Germalic, who challenges the facial constitutionality of N.Y. Elec. Law § 6-140(1)(b) insofar as it requires circulators of candidate petitions to be state residents, appeals from the dismissal of his complaint for lack of standing. We review the challenged dismissal de novo, accepting all factual allegations in the complaint as true, and drawing all reasonable inferences therefrom in Germalic’s favor. See Selevan v. N.Y. Thruway Auth., 584 F.3d 82, 88 (2d Cir.2009). Further, because Germalic appears pro se, we construe his pleadings liberally to raise the strongest arguments they suggest. See Hill v. Curcione, 657 F.3d 116, 122 (2d Cir.2011). In applying those principles here, we assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts and record of prior proceedings, which we reference only as necessary to explain our decision to affirm.

The district court concluded that Germalic lacked Article III standing because his pleadings failed to establish that the Ohio resident’s inability to get his name on the ballot in New York’s 2010 election for United States Senator was not “fairly traceable” to the residency requirement. New York requires that a petition be supported by 15,000 signatures. See N.Y. Elec. Law § 6-142(1). Germalic submitted only 7,800 signatures, of which all but 1,336 were disqualified for unspecified reasons. Thus, the district court properly concluded that the complaint failed to plead facts establishing a plausible claim that Germalic’s failure to have his name placed on the ballot was attributable to the challenged law.

We identify yet another jurisdictional defect in the complaint. See Scott v. Fischer, 616 F.3d 100, 105 (2d Cir.2010) (noting that we may affirm district court’s judgment on any basis apparent from record). Germalic admits knowing of the challenged residency requirement on or before August 17, 2010, the deadline for submitting the needed signatures. Nevertheless, he sought no declaratory judgment as to the requirement’s constitutionality until November 1, 2010, the day before the election. By that time, there was no possibility of affording him effectual relief, and thus mootness also requires dismissal. See College Standard Magazine v. Student Ass’n of State Univ. of N.Y. at Albany, 610 F.3d 33, 35 (2d Cir.2010) (recognizing court’s obligation to address mootness sua sponte because it pertains to jurisdiction). Germalic cannot avoid this conclusion by arguing that he intends to run for other offices in New York, rendering his claim capable of repetition but evading review. Such a vague statement of intent is insufficient to generate a justiciable controversy. See Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 109, 118 S.Ct. 1003, 140 L.Ed.2d 210 (1998) (holding that “allegations of future injury [must] be particular and concrete”). In any event, Germalic has failed to show that the courts could not afford him declaratory relief if he were to file a complaint within a reasonable time of the petitioning process for a particular election. See Favors v. Cuomo, 2012 WL 928228, at *1-2 (E.D.N.Y. Mar.19, 2012), available at http://www.nyed.uscourts.gov Oast visited April 3, 2012) (granting declaratory judgment in constitutional challenge to New York’s congressional districts within approximately one month of three-judge court assignment).

We have considered Germalic’s remaining arguments and conclude they are without merit. The judgment of the district court is therefore AFFIRMED.