## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### OCT 30 2000 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

LINDSEY K. SPRINGER, Plaintiff - Appellant, vs. VICKI BALOUGH; SANDRA STOUT; JANE D. HULL; JACQUE ALEXANDER; JOHN MOTT-SMITH; VICTORIA BUCKLEY; THOMAS H. FERGUSON; THOMAS J. COOK; DAVID A. RANCOURT; LINDA W. BEAZLEY; DWAYNE D. YOSHINA; PETE T. CENARRUSA; RONALD D. MICHAELSON, Dr; SUE ANNE GILROY; CAROL OLSON; RON E. THORNBURGH; JOHN Y. BROWN, III; WADE MARTIN, III; JULIE L. FLYNN; GENE M. BAYNOR; JOHN CLOONAN; CHRISTOPHER M. THOMAS; JOSEPH MANSKY; ERIC CLARK; MERYL ATTERBERRY; JOE KERWIN; SCOTT MOORE; DEAN HELLER; WILLIAM M. GARDNER; JOSEPH F. BRITT; STEPHANI GONZALES; THOMAS R. WILKEY; GARY O. BARTLETT; ALVIN A. JAEGER; BOB TAFT; LANCE D. WARD; COLLEEN SEALOCK; DICK FILLING; JANET ARMSTRONG; JAMES HENDRIX; JOYCE HAZELTINE; BROOK THOMPSON; ANN MCGEEHAN; OLENE S. WALKER; JAMES MILNE; M. BRUCE MEADOWS; GARY MCINTOSH; KEN HECKLER; KEVIN J. KENNEDY; DIANA No. 00-5071 (D.C. No. 99-CV-977-BU) (N.D. Okla.)* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. This court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

** After examining the briefs and the appellate recor d, this three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argumentwould not be of material assistance in the determination of this appeal. Se e Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1 (G). The cause is therefore ordered s ubmitted without oral argument. - 2 - OHMAN; LINDA H. LAMONE; JEANETTE K. HEINBOCKEL; DEBORAH L. MARKOWITZ, Defendants - Appellees.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before BRORBY , KELLY , and MURPHY , Circuit Judges. **
Petitioner-Appellant Lindsey Springer, appearing pr o se, appeals from the district court’s dismissal of his civil rights comp laint, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, for lack of personal jurisdiction over the non-resident defe ndants and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted against all the defendants. Our jurisdiction arises under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We aff irm.- 3 - Background Mr. Springer wrote letters to the election officials of all fif ty states asserting that he met the constitutional requiremen ts to be President of the United States, and requesting that each of them place his name on their respective ballots. When the election officials in each state either rejected or ignored his request, Mr. Springer sued, alleging that their bal lot access laws violated his constitutional rights under the 9th, 10th, and 14th Amendments.

Discussion We review a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction de novo. Soma Medical Int’l v. Standard Chartered Bank , 196 F.3d 1292, 1295 (10th Cir. 1999); Kennedy v. Freeman , 919 F.2d 126, 128 (10th Cir. 1990). In a federal question case, the federal court must determine “(1 ) ‘whether the applicable statute potentially confers jurisdiction’ by author izing service of process on the defendant and (2) 

### % whether the exercise of jurisdiction comports with due process.’” Peay v. Bellsouth Medical Assistance Plan , 205 F.3d 1206, 1209 (10th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted). As there is no fede ral statute authorizing nationwide personal jurisdiction in this case, F ED
. R. C IV
. P. 4(k)(1)(A) refers us to the Oklahoma long-arm statute. Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 12, § 2004(F) (West 2000).- 4 -

The Oklahoma long-arm statute “permits the exercise of any jurisdiction that is consistent with the United States Constitut ion,” collapsing the personal jurisdiction analysis into a due process inquiry. Intercon, Inc. v. Bell Atlantic Internet Solutions, Inc. , 205 F.3d 1244, 1247 (10th Cir. 2000). A court ca n exercise personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant consistent with the Due Process Clause if “minimum contacts” exist betw een the defendant and the forum state. Id . The plaintiff bears the burden of making a prima facie showing that these standards are satisfied when personal ju risdiction is challenged under
F ED
. R. C IV
. P. 12(b)(2). OMI Holdings, Inc. v. Royal Ins. Co. of Canada , 149 F.3d 1086, 1091 (10th Cir. 1998). The only contact s that Mr. Springer has alleged between the non-resident defendants and Okl ahoma are the responses some of the Defendants sent to Mr. Springer, denyin g his request to be listed on the general election ballot. We deem this insuffic ient to provide a prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction. A court may dismiss a complaint for failure to stat e a claim upon which relief can be granted. See F ED
. R. C IV
. P. 12 (b)(6). We review such a dismissal de novo. Joseph v. Wiles , 223 F.3d 1155, 1158 (10th Cir. 2000). While allegations in the plaintiff’s complaint are presumed to be true, see Miller v. Glanz , 948 F.2d 1562, 1565 (10th Cir. 1991), “the court need accept as true only the plaintiff’s well-pleaded factual contentions, n ot his conclusory allegations.”- 5 -

Hall v. Bellmon , 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). Therefore, a plaintiff must “set forth factual allegations, either direct or inferential, respecting each material element necessary to sustain recovery unde r some actionable legal theory.” Gooley v. Mobil Oil Corp. , 851 F.2d 513, 515 (1st Cir. 1988). Mr. Springer has failed to establish under what leg al theory he can claim judicial relief. The Supreme Court has recognized that states can place certain restrictions on elections to keep them fair, honest, and orderly. See Storer v.
Brown , 415 U.S. 724, 730 (1974). Specifically in the co ntext of ballot access in a presidential election, the Supreme Court has recogn ized that “the state’s important regulatory interests are generally suffic ient to justify reasonable, nondiscriminatory restrictions.” Anderson v. Celebrezze , 460 U.S. 780, 788 (1982). See also Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party , 520 U.S. 351, 358 (1997) (stating the Constitution permits a state to “enact reasonable regulations of parties, elections, and ballots to reduce election- and campaign-related disorder”). Mr. Springer has failed to plead any specific facts that call into question whether any specific state requirements violate these stand ards. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the districtcourt. All other pending motions are DENIED.- 6 - Entered for the Court
Paul J. Kelly, Jr. Circuit Judge