IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT C 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF 

FORT WORTH DIVISION 

KYLE STRONGIN, ET AL. 

Plaintiffs, 

NO U .. DI. TRI T , URT 

RTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

URT r~FTLEILJ 

<XAS L_ N 

crn~-:

0

,' DIS:,;: COURT 

By . I L'J)ttty 

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 TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER 

Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs' Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining 

Order ("Motion for TRO") [doc, 203], filed October 21, 2022. This case is presently before the 

undersigned for pretrial management pursuant to Special Order 3-251. After reviewing the motion, 

response, replies, 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 First Amended Complaint1 [ doc. 13], filed 

on July 25, 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' First Amended Complaint ("Pis.' Am. Comp!.") at 2.) Plaintiffs seek 

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

1 The Court notes that Plaintiffs, on October 3, 2022, flied a First Motion for Leave to File Second Amended 

and Supplemental Complaints. This motion has not yet been ruled upon by the Court. Consequently, Plaintiffs First 

Amended Complaint is currently the live pleading before the Court. 

Case 4:22-cv-00576-P Document 224 Filed 11/03/22 Page 1 of 6 PageID 3936
election laws, and hand-counted by residents of the state of Teas, as Texas Election law allows .. 

. , instead of with machines." (Pis.' Am. Comp!. at 2.) 

In their Motion for TRO, Plaintiffs "move the Court to enter a Temporary Restraining 

Order barring Defendants from using computerized equipment to administer the collection, 

storage, counting, and tabulation of any votes in any under [sic] the Tex. Elect. Code until such 

time that the propriety of a permanent injunction is determined. (Pis.' Motion for TRO at 1.) In 

support, Plaintiffs state: 

On November 8, 2022, Plaintiffs will again cast their votes in a statewide general 

election to determine numerous public offices .... 

Defendants intend, once again, to utilize computerized electronic voting 

systems for this election. These electronic voting systems are not legally certified 

by the Secretary of State in accordance with TX Admin. Code § 81.61 (2019), "For 

any voting machine ... to be certified for use in Texas elections, the system shall 

have been certified ... by a Nationally Recognized Test Laboratory .... " 

However, the electronic voting systems are open to manipulation and are 

not legally certified as reported by the Declarations of Terpsehore Maras and EAC 

documentation. 

(Pis.' Motion for TRO. at 6.) After setting forth alleged evidence in support of their claims that 

electronic voting systems are open to manipulation and are not legally certified, accreditation 

failures, established security vulnerabilities, and the federalization of Texas elections, Plaintiffs 

further assert: 

America was founded on the principles of the consent of the governed by 

virtue of the ballot box. Until recently, American voters recorded their votes by 

hand, on paper which was then counted by hand in accordance with US Const. Art. 

6 Sec. 4. The method of voting by paper ballot and hand counting is a well 

established practice in Texas Elections. 

It is only in the last 2-3 decades that the voting box has become electronic. 

More oversight is required to guard a backdoor that which that only cyber security 

expe1is are able to detect. These measures intended to make the voting process 

easier and more accessible to voters actually create more issues than they resolve. 

2 

Case 4:22-cv-00576-P Document 224 Filed 11/03/22 Page 2 of 6 PageID 3937
Why utilize such a vulnerable and costly systemA [sic] tried and true manner for 

securing our votes is available: hand-counted, paper ballots? 

(Pis.' Mot. for TRO at 17.) 

Defendants, in their various responses, argue, inter alia, that Plaintiffs' motion should be 

denied for the following reasons: (1) Courts should not issue orders changing the manner of an 

election during an active, ongoing election; (2) Plaintiffs cannot meet the standard for obtaining a 

TRO as: (a) they are not likely to succeed on the merits, (b) they will not suffer an injury absent 

the injunction, ( c) the injury to Plaintiffs does not outweigh the harm to Defendants, and ( d) 

granting the TRO will seriously disserve the public interest; and (3) Plaintiffs unduly delayed 

bringing the TRO to the Court as early voting began on Monday, October 24, 2022 (See 

Defendants Responses and Briefs filed at docs. 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216.) Plaintiffs 

subsequently filed a reply to each response. 

To obtain a temporary restraining order, Plaintiffs must satisfy the following four 

requirements that apply to an application for temporary injunctive relief: (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). "A TRO is 'simply a highly 

accelerated and temporary form of preliminary injunctive relief."' CompuCom Sys., Inc. v. WJ 

Global, LLC, No. 3:14-CV-3625-L, 2014 WL 5032747, at *2 (N,D, Tex, Oct. 8, 2014) (quoting 

Hassani v. Napolitano, No. 3:09-CV-1201-D, 2009 WL 2044596, at *1 (N.D. Tex. July 15, 2009)). 

3 

Case 4:22-cv-00576-P Document 224 Filed 11/03/22 Page 3 of 6 PageID 3938
The Court FINDS and CONCLUDES that, for the reasons set forth by the Defendants in 

their responses and briefs, Plaintiffs have failed to show a sufficiently substantial likelihood that 

they will prevail on the merits, that irreparable harm will result if the Motion is not granted, that 

the threatened injury to Plaintiffs outweighs the threatened harm to Defendants, and that granting 

the Motion will not disserve the public interest. In particular, the Court notes that, given the fact 

that early voting has already started, issuing an injunction at this time would surely disrupt the 

electoral process and disserve the public interest. Moreover, as set forth in the multiple motions 

to dismiss currently pending before the Court, there are serious questions at this point regarding 

whether Plaintiffs even have standing to bring the suit. See also Soudelier v. Dept. of State La., 

No. 22-2436, 2022 WL 3686422 at 1-2 (E.D. La. Aug. 25, 2022 (denying Plaintiffs motion for 

TRO that orders electronic voting system to be replaced with paper ballots 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 non-conclusory, non-speculative constitutional 

claim or injury); Bryan v. Abramson, No. SX-!0-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). 

Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that the district judge DENY Plaintiffs' 

Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order [doc. 203]. 

4 

Case 4:22-cv-00576-P Document 224 Filed 11/03/22 Page 4 of 6 PageID 3939
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 paiiy, 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 

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 November 

17, 2022 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 pmiy chooses to file a response, the response shall be filed within seven (7) days 

of the filing date of the objections. 

5 

Case 4:22-cv-00576-P Document 224 Filed 11/03/22 Page 5 of 6 PageID 3940
It is further ORDERED that 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 November 3, 2022. 

JEFE Y;t. CURETON 

7STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGD 

-✓ 

6 

Case 4:22-cv-00576-P Document 224 Filed 11/03/22 Page 6 of 6 PageID 3941