CASE STUDIES IN EMERGENCY ELECTION LITIGATION

Federal Judicial Center 7/14/2023 1 

Unsuccessful Pro Se Challenge 

to a Fluoride Ballot Initiative 

Espronceda v. Krier (H.F. Garcia, William Wayne Justice, 

and Pamela A. Mathy, W.D. Tex. 5:00-cv-1259) 

One week after the election, a pro se federal complaint challenged the 

passage of a referendum to add fluoride to a city’s drinking water. A 

little over a year later, a three-judge district court granted the defendants summary judgment. 

Subject: Ballot measures. Topics: Ballot measure; enjoining 

certification; pro se party; section 5 preclearance; three-judge court; 

case assignment; recusal. 

A pro se federal complaint filed in the Western District of Texas on November 

14, 2000, sought invalidation of November 7 election results in San Antonio, 

which is located in Bexar County, because of opposition to a municipal referendum to add fluoride to the city’s drinking water.1

 With their complaint, the 

plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary restraining order.2

That same day, District Judge H.F. Garcia denied the plaintiffs a temporary 

restraining order for failure to comply with the notice provisions of Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 65.3 On November 28, Judge Garcia denied additional 

motions for temporary restraining orders and referred motions for preliminary injunctions to Magistrate Judge Pamela A. Mathy,4

 who denied motions 

that she recuse herself.5

Reviewing an amended complaint filed on November 21, Judge Mathy recommended, on December 28, (1) denial of the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction and (2) direction that further filings from the plaintiffs not be 

accepted without proper certificates of service.6

1. Docket Sheet, Espronceda v. Krier, No. 5:00-cv-1259 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 14, 2000) (D.E. 

1); Opinion, id. (Jan. 8, 2002), D.E. 173 [hereinafter Summary-Judgment Opinion]; Report 

and Recommendation at 2, id. (Dec. 28, 2000), D.E. 70. 

2. Docket Sheet, supra note 1 (D.E. 2); Report and Recommendation, supra note 1, at 2. 

3. Order, Espronceda, No. 5:00-cv-1259 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 14, 2000), D.E. 3; Report and 

Recommendation, supra note 1, at 2–3. 

4. Order, Espronceda, No. 5:00-cv-1259 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 28, 2000), D.E. 13; Docket Sheet, 

supra note 1; Report and Recommendation, supra note 1, at 4–5. 

Judge Mathy retired on January 14, 2017. Judicial Milestones, www.uscourts.gov/judicialmilestones/pamela-ann-mathy. 

5. Order and Advisory at 9, Espronceda, No. 5:00-cv-1259 (W.D. Tex. Dec. 19, 2000), D.E. 

48; Order and Advisory, id. (Dec. 4, 2000), D.E. 16. 

6. Report and Recommendation, supra note 1; see Docket Sheet, supra note 1 (amended 

complaint, D.E. 5); see also Order, Espronceda, No. 5:00-cv-1259 (W.D. Tex. Dec. 28, 2000), 

D.E. 71 (returning the case to the district judge); Matt Flores, Fluoridation Foes Lose Round in 

Court, San Antonio Express-News, Dec. 30, 2000, at 1B.
Unsuccessful Pro Se Challenge to a Fluoride Ballot Initiative 

2 Federal Judicial Center 7/14/2023

Judge Garcia transferred the case to District Judge William Wayne Justice 

on May 22, 2001.7 Judge Garcia died on January 16, 2002.8 Judge Justice determined that a pending claim pursuant to section 5 of the Voting Rights Act 

required appointment of a three-judge district court, so on July 16, 2001, Circuit Judge Emilio M. Garza and Western District of Texas Judge Edward C. 

Prado were named to join Judge Justice on a three-judge court.9 Circuit Judge 

Fortunato P. Benavides replaced Judge Garza, who recused himself.10

On August 30, 2001, Judge Justice issued nine orders denying pending 

plaintiff motions.11 Judge Justice issued an additional fifteen orders against the 

plaintiffs over the course of four weeks.12 He also issued six orders not adverse 

to the plaintiffs13 and an additional order denying a motion for sanctions 

against the plaintiffs.14

On January 8, 2002, the three-judge court granted summary judgment to 

the defendants.15 “[W]ith all due respect to the plaintiffs’ anti-fluoride jeremiad, this court is not the proper forum for resolution of the health issues 

plaintiff advances. Plaintiffs have still produced no solid evidence that the defendants violated federal election law or otherwise infringed upon plaintiffs’ 

civil rights.”16

The court of appeals dismissed an appeal as having been filed with the 

wrong court; the appeal from the three-judge decision should have been filed 

with the Supreme Court.17

7. Order, Espronceda, No. 5:00-cv-1259 (W.D. Tex. May 22, 2001), D.E. 124. 

Judge Justice died on October 13, 2009. Federal Judicial Center Biographical Directory of 

Article III Federal Judges [hereinafter FJC Biographical Directory], www.fjc.gov/history/ 

judges. 

8. FJC Biographical Directory, supra note 7. 

9. Order, Espronceda, No. 5:00-cv-1259 (W.D. Tex. July 16, 2001), D.E. 125; see Voting 

Rights Act of 1965, Pub. L. No. 89-110, § 5, 79 Stat. 437, 439, as amended, 52 U.S.C. § 10304 

(requiring preclearance of changes to voting procedures in jurisdictions with a certified history of discrimination and requiring that preclearance disputes be heard by a three-judge district court). 

On June 25, 2013, the Supreme Court declined to hold section 5 unconstitutional, but the 

Court did hold unconstitutional the criteria for which jurisdictions require section 5 preclearance. Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529 (2013). 

Judge Garza retired on January 5, 2015; Judge Prado was elevated to the court of appeals 

on May 5, 2003, and he retired on April 2, 2018. FJC Biographical Directory, supra note 7. 

10. Order, Espronceda, No. 5:00-cv-1259 (W.D. Tex. July 23, 2001), D.E. 126. 

Judge Benavides died on May 5, 2023. FJC Biographical Directory, supra note 7. 

11. Orders, Espronceda, No. 5:00-cv-1259 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 31, 2001), D.E. 127 to 135. 

12. Orders, id. (Aug. 31, 2001), D.E. 136 to 140, 142 to 148, 152, 154, 155. 

13. Orders, id. (Sept. 28 to Oct. 24, 2001), D.E. 149 to 151, 153, 159, 160. 

14. Order, id. (Sept. 28, 2001), D.E. 141. 

15. Summary-Judgment Opinion, supra note 1. 

16. Id. at 2. 

17. Espronceda v. Krier, 61 F. App’x 121 (5th Cir. 2003).