Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_16-cv-00755/USCOURTS-almd-2_16-cv-00755-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 441
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Voting
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

ROQUE “ROCKY” DE LA 

FUENTE and ADANYS 

CLERCH,

Plaintiffs,

v.

JOHN H. MERRILL, Secretary of 

State for the State of Alabama,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO. 2:16-CV-755-WKW

 [WO]

ORDER

Before the court is Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint (Doc. # 7), which has been 

construed as containing a motion for a preliminary injunction. Plaintiffs challenge 

the constitutionality of Alabama’s “sore loser” statute, Ala. Code § 17-9-3(b), as 

applied to bar Plaintiff Roque “Rocky” De La Fuente from appearing as a candidate 

for President on the general-election ballot. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and 

injunctive relief against the statute’s application. An on-the-record telephonic 

hearing was conducted on September 27, 2016 (see Docs. # 19, 20), and the parties 

have briefed the matter on an expedited schedule (Docs. # 13, 14, 22). Plaintiffs’ 

motion for a preliminary injunction will be denied, as set out in this order; because 

of the time-sensitive nature of the matter, the court’s full memorandum opinion will 

issue later.

Case 2:16-cv-00755-WKW-GMB Document 23 Filed 09/30/16 Page 1 of 3
2

The decision to grant or deny a preliminary injunction “is within the sound 

discretion of the district court.” Palmer v. Braun, 287 F.3d 1325, 1329 (11th Cir.

2002). To prevail on a motion for a preliminary injunction, the moving party bears 

the burden of demonstrating that:

(1) it has a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) 

irreparable injury will be suffered unless the injunction issues; (3) the 

threatened injury to the movant outweighs whatever damage the 

proposed injunction may cause the opposing party; and (4) if issued, 

the injunction would not be adverse to the public interest.

Am. Civil Liberties Union of Fla., Inc. v. Miami–Dade Cty. Sch. Bd., 557 F.3d 1177, 

1198 (11th Cir. 2009) (quoting Siegel v. LePore, 234 F.3d 1163, 1167 (11th Cir.

2000)). “A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy not to be 

granted unless the movant clearly establishes the burden of persuasion as to the four 

prerequisites.” Id.

Plaintiffs have shown that “irreparable injury”—namely, Mr. De La Fuente’s

exclusion from the Alabama general-election ballot—may result unless an 

injunction issues. (See Doc. # 7 at 11.) But Plaintiffs cannot show a substantial 

likelihood of success on the merits. See Am. Civil Liberties Union of Fla., Inc., 557 

F.3d at 1198. Plaintiffs have alleged claims arising under the Qualifications Clause, 

the First Amendment (as incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment, see Near v. 

Minnesota ex rel. Olson, 283 U.S. 697, 707 (1931)), and the Fourteenth Amendment 

Case 2:16-cv-00755-WKW-GMB Document 23 Filed 09/30/16 Page 2 of 3
3

Equal Protection Clause.1(Doc. # 7 at 12–13.) Upon careful consideration, these 

claims fail, as will be explained in the memorandum opinion to follow.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary 

injunction (Doc. # 7) is DENIED.

DONE this 30th day of September, 2016.

 /s/ W. Keith Watkins 

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

1 Plaintiffs have also argued for a species of estoppel based on Lyndon LaRouche’s 

inclusion on Alabama’s 1992 general-election ballots despite his defeat in the Democratic 

presidential primary of that year. (Doc. # 22 at 10–12.) Plaintiffs support this “due 

process/reliance/waiver/estoppel argument” (Doc. # 22 at 7 n.3) with one-and-a-half pages of

argument, half a footnote, and two district-court opinions, one from Rhode Island and one from

Michigan. These cases, like Plaintiffs’ argument, fail to persuade.

Case 2:16-cv-00755-WKW-GMB Document 23 Filed 09/30/16 Page 3 of 3