IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

FORT WORTH DIVISION 

KYLE STRONGIN, ET AL. 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

Plaintiffs, 

v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:22-CV-576-P 

JOHN B. SCOTT, ET AL. 

Defendants. 

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE UNITED 

STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE REGARDING PLAINTIFFS' EMERGENCY MOTION 

FOR EMERGENCY PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 

Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs' Emergency Motion for Preliminary Injunction to 

Preserve Election Records ("Motion for PI") (doc. 131], filed August 25, 2022. This motion was 

referred to the undersigned on January 13, 2023. After reviewing the motion, responses, reply, 

pleadings and applicable law, and Court makes the following findings, conclusions, and 

recommendations. 

This case was originally filed on July 6, 2022 by over twenty pro-se Plaintiffs against over 

fifty Defendants, all officials ranging from the state to the county level that allegedly have some 

control over various election laws or processes. In their Second Amended Complaint (doc. 231], 

filed on November 15, 2022, Plaintiffs seek, inter a/ia, "an Order that the Defendants adhere to 

the constitutionally protected process of collecting and counting votes that ensures integrity and 

transparency," (Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint ("Pis.' Sec. Am. Comp!.") at 8.) Plaintiffs 

want to "require hand-marked paper ballots that can be cast with anonymity, following all Texas 

state election laws, and hand-counted by residents of the state of Teas, as Texas Election law allows 

... , instead of with machines." (Id.) 

Case 4:22-cv-00576-P Document 249 Filed 03/01/23 Page 1 of 6 PageID 4496
In their Motion for PI, Plaintiffs seek a preliminary injunction "barring Defendants from 

destroying elections records for the November 3, 2020, general election." (Plaintiffs Mot. for PI 

("Pis.' Mot. for PI") at 1.) In support, Plaintiff state: 

This is an action to bring transparency, fairness, honesty, and quality to 

elections and to hold responsible those government officials who violate the equal 

protection and due process rights of Plaintiffs guaranteed by the United States 

Constitution. The 22[-]month preservation period [under 52 U.S.C. § 20701] 1 is 

coming to an end for the 2020 election records and two Defendant counties despite 

this case have confirmed that they intend to destroy these records this week .... 

Over the course of 2021 through [August 25, 2022], Plaintiffs have sent 

numerous Public Information Requests (PIRS) to obtain documentation and records 

for the 2020-2022 election cycles. Defendants, in circumstances outlined below, 

have denied Plaintiffs' public information requests pertaining to the election 

infrastructure .... 

(Pis.' Mot. for PI at 2.) 

The Comal County Defendants,2 Hays County Defendants,3 and Tarrant County 

Defendants4 each filed "Advisories to the Court Regarding Plaintiffs' Motion for Emergency 

Preliminary Injunction and Document Retention" ("Advisories") to the Court [docs. 146, 147, 171, 

respectively] stating that they have and will comply with the requirement of document retention 

under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Advisories [docs. 146, 147, 171] at 2.) These 

Defendants further stated that these counties are retaining records related to the 2020 election, 

including: "(1) paper ballots including voting system created; (2) tabulation tapes; (3) cast vote 

1 52 U .S.C. § 20701 "sets forth certain requirements for retention and preservation of records and papers by 

officers of elections." Pirtle v. Nago, No. 22-00381 JMS-WRP, 2022 WL 3915570, at *2 (D. Haw. Aug. 31, 2022). 

2 The Comal County Defendants are Bobbie Koepp and Cynthia Jaqua. 

3 The Hays County Defendants are Jennifer Doinoff, Ruben Becerra, Debbie Ingalsbe, Mark Jones, Lon Shell, 

and Walt Smith. 

4 The Tarrant County Defendants are Heider Garcia, B. Glen Whitley, Roy Charles Brooks, Devan Allen, 

Gary Fickes, and J.D. Johnson. 

2 

Case 4:22-cv-00576-P Document 249 Filed 03/01/23 Page 2 of 6 PageID 4497
records; (4) mail-in ballots; (5) provisional ballots; (6) USBs from all precincts; (7) USB final 

counts; (8) chain of custody documents; (9) all election forms required under Texas Election Code; 

and (10) all records related to certification of voting devices." (Advisories [ docs. 146, 14 7, 171].) 

In addition, the HmTis County Defendants filed a Response to Plaintiffs Emergency 

Motion for Emergency Preliminary Injunction [ doc. 179] in which they, inter alia, stated that they 

were "well aware that they, like all parties in litigation, have a duty to preserve evidence that is 

relevant to litigation that is ongoing on anticipated." (Harris County Defendants' Response at 3.) 

The Harris County Defendants further stated that they had "already notified Plaintiffs by email 

that the election records from November 2020 election will not be destroyed upon the conclusion 

of the 22-month retention period.") (Id.) 

To obtain a preliminary injunction order, Plaintiffs must satisfy the following four 

requirements: (1) a substantial likelihood that the movant will prevail on the merits; (2) a 

substantial threat of irreparable harm; (3) the balance of hardships weighs in the movant's favor; 

and (4) the issuance of the injunction will not disserve the public interest. See Women's Med. Ctr. 

v. Bell, 248 F.3d 411, 418-20 (5th Cir. 2001); Champion Nat'! Sec., Inc. v. A&A Sec. Grp., LLC, 

No. 3:21-CV-00528-M, 2021 WL 1400979, at *3 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 13, 2021). The party seeking 

injunctive relief must clearly carry the burden of persuasion on all four prerequisites to prevail. 

See Miss. Power & Light Co. v. United Gas Pipe Line Co., 760 F.2d 618, 621 (5th Cir. 1985). 

After reviewing all the relevant evidence, the Court FINDS and CONCLUDES that 

Plaintiffs' motion should be DENIED for at least two reasons. To begin with, Plaintiffs request 

that the Court grant the preliminary injunction and order the preservation of the records pursuant 

to 52 U.S.C. § 20701. 5 (Pis.' Mot. for PI at 2.) However, federal courts have consistently held 

5 52 U.S.C. § 20701 states: 

3 

Case 4:22-cv-00576-P Document 249 Filed 03/01/23 Page 3 of 6 PageID 4498
that this statute does not create a private right of action. See Smith v. DeBoyer, No. 2:22-cv-11572, 

2022 WL 16641857, at *3 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 12, 2022) (collecting cases), rec. adopted, 2022 WL 

16636928 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 2, 2022); Fox v. Lee, No. 18-259, 2019 WL 13141701, at *I (N.D. 

Fla. Apr. 2, 2019) ("In a word, 52 U.S.C. § 20701 does not confer a private right of action on 

Plain tiffs.") 

In addition, Plaintiffs, at the very least, have failed to show a sufficiently substantial 

likelihood that they will prevail on the merits. As set forth in Defendants' Motion to Dismiss 

Second Amended Complaint [doc. 239] that is currently pending before the Court, there are serious 

questions at this point regarding whether Plaintiffs even have standing to bring the suit. See also 

Vent v. Fletcher, No. 3:22-cv-01651-RBM-DDL, 2022 WL 16557622, at *2 (S.D. Calif. Oct. 28, 

2022) (denying Plaintiffs motion for TRO prohibiting Defendants from destroying the November 

2020 election data as scheduled 22 months after the election because, inter a/ia, Plaintiff did not 

demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits); Pirtle v. Nago, No. 22-00381 JMS-WRP, 2022 

WL 3915570, at *3-4 (denying Plaintiffs motion for an emergency TRO to preserve election data 

pursuant to 52 U.S.C. § 20701 because Plaintiff, inter alia, failed to demonstrate a likelihood of 

success on the merits due to a lack of standing as well as no basis of a justiciable claim); Soudelier 

v. Dept. o,[State La., No. 22-2436, 2022 WL 3686422 at *1-2 (E.D. La. Aug. 25, 2022 (denying 

Every officer of election shall retain and preserve, for a period of twenty-two months from 

the date of any general, special, or primary election of which candidates for the office of President, 

Vice President, presidential elector, Member of the Senate, Member of the House of 

Representatives, or Resident Commissioner from the Commonwealth of Pue1to Rico are voted for, 

all records and papers which come into his possession relating to any application, registration, 

payment of poll tax, or other act requisite to voting in such election, except that, when required by 

law, such records and papers may be delivered to another officer of election and except that, if a 

State or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico designates a custodian to retain and preserve these 

records and papers at a specified place, then such records and papers may be deposited with such 

custodian, and the duty to retain and preserve any record or paper so deposited shall devolve upon 

such custodian. Any officer of election or custodian who willfully fails to comply with this section 

shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both. 

52 u.s.c. § 2070 I. 

4 

Case 4:22-cv-00576-P Document 249 Filed 03/01/23 Page 4 of 6 PageID 4499
Plaintiffs motion for TRO that orders '"that none of the voting machines in the state be used for 

another election,' that 'the electronic voting system be replaced with paper ballots,' and 'that none 

of the data and information of the voting systems and equipment from the 2020 general elections 

be tampered with, nor deleted"' because the statutes under which plaintiff seeks relief do not confer 

private rights of action and, as to Plaintiffs constitutional claims, Plaintiff failed to allege a 11011-

conclusory, non-speculative constitutional claim or injury); see also Bryan v. Abramson, No. SX10-CV-363, 2010 WL 7746073, at * 11 (V.I. Super. Oct. 14, 2010) (denying Plaintiffs motion for 

TRO on Plaintiffs demand that paper ballots be used as Plaintiff had no standing to bring action 

and failed to show that he would be irrevocably harmed). 

Based on the foregoing, the Court RECOMMENDS that the district judge DENY 

Plaintiffs' Emergency Motion for Preliminary Injunction [ doc. 131]. 

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO OBJECT TO PROPOSED 

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION 

AND CONSEQUENCES OF FAILURE TO OBJECT 

Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l), each party to this action has the right to serve and file specific 

written objections in the United States District Court to the United States Magistrate Judge's 

proposed findings, conclusions and recommendation within fourteen (14) days after the party has 

been served with a copy of this document. The United States District Judge need only make a de 

nova determination of those portions of the United States Magistrate Judge's proposed findings, 

conclusions and recommendation to which specific objection is timely made. See 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(l). Failure to file, by the date stated above, a specific written objection to a proposed 

factual finding or legal conclusion will bar a party, except upon grounds of plain error or manifest 

injustice, from attacking on appeal any such proposed factual findings and legal conclusions 

accepted by the United States District Judge. See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto Ass 'n, 79 F.3d 

5 

Case 4:22-cv-00576-P Document 249 Filed 03/01/23 Page 5 of 6 PageID 4500
1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996), modified by statute on other grounds, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l) 

(extending time to file objections to 14 days). 

ORDER 

Under 28 U.S.C. § 636, it is hereby ORDERED that each party is granted until March 

14, 2023 to serve and file written objections to the United States Magistrate Judge's proposed 

findings, conclusions and recommendation. It is further ORDERED that if objections are 

filed and the opposing party chooses to file a response, the response shall be filed within seven 

(7) days of the filing date of the objections. 

It is further ORDEREDthat the above-styled and numbered action, previously referred to 

the United States Magistrate Judge for findings, conclusions and recommendation, be and hereby 

is returned to the docket of the United States District Judge. 

SIGNED March 1, 2023. 

6 

L. RETON

STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 4:22-cv-00576-P Document 249 Filed 03/01/23 Page 6 of 6 PageID 4501