J ed S. Rakoff, of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ne w York, * sitti ngby designation. 08
- 47 31
- cv V an A l l en v. W alsh UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SE CO ND CI RC UI T SUM M AR

Y O RD ER RULING S B Y SUM M ARY O RDER DO NOT HAV E PRECEDENTI AL EFFECT. CI TATIONTO A SUM M ARY O RDER FILED ONOR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2 00 7, IS PERM ITTED AND IS GOVERNED B Y FEDERAL RULE O F APPELLATE P R OC EDURE 32.1 AND THIS CO URT’S LOCA L RULE 32 .1. 1. WH EN CITI NG A SUM M ARY O RDER I N A DOCUMENT FILED WITH TH IS COUR T, A PARTY M UST CITE EI THER TH E FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRON IC DA TABAS E (WITH TH E NOTA TION “ SUM M ARY O RDER”). A PARTY CI TING A SUM M ARY ORDER M UST SERV E A CO PY OF IT ON ANY PART Y NO T REPRESENTED BY COU NSEL. At a stated te rm of the United States Court of A ppeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patric k Moy

nihan Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of Ne w York, on the 25 day th of Mar ch, two thousand a nd ten. PRES ENT: ROBERT A. K ATZ MANN, P E T E R W
. H A LL, Circuit Judges , J ED S . RAKO FF,

District Judge. *

_____________________________________________ H. Will iam Van Allen, Plaintif f-Appellant , v. 08-4731-c v Jame s A . Wa lsh , in div idu a l and of fi c ia l c a pa c ity a s Commi ssioner of the N ew Yor k State Boa

rd of Elections, e t al

. , De fe nd an ts- Ap pe lle e s.

______________________________________________ For Appellant: H. Will iam Van Allen, pro s e , Hurley , N.Y. For Appellee s: Andre w Cuomo, Attorney Gene ral of the State of New Y ork, B arba

ra D . Under

wood, Solicitor2 Ge ne ra l, D e nis e A. Ha

rt man, An dr e w B . Aye rs , Assistant Sol icitors Gene ral, Alba ny , N.Y. Appea l from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Northe rn District of New Y ork (Ka

hn, J .). UP ON DU E C ON SID ER AT ION , i ti s h e r e b y ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judg ment of the district cour t be AF F IRM ED
. Appellant H. William Van Allen, pro s e , a pp e a ls t he dis tr ic t c ourt ’s dis mis sa l of his
a c tio n f or fa ilure to s tate a

c la im u po n whic h r e lie f c ou ld b e gra nte d. We a ssume the pa

rt ie s’ fa mil iari ty wi th t he un de rl yingfa c ts, the pr oc e dura l hi sto ry of the c a se s, and

the iss ue s o n a

pp e a l. Be cause Van Allen ha s filed a brief c onsisting solely of a doc ument filed in the cour t below and a

copy of a de cision rende red by this Court i n an unre lated and ina pplicable c ase, he has fa iled to identify

any issues for this Court to review. I ssues not raised in a n appellate brief
are abandone d. See Sle dge v. Kooi , 564 F.3d 105, 106 n.1 ( 2d Cir. 2009) ; LoSacco v . City of Mi dd le tow n , 7 1 F .3 d 8 8, 92 -9 3 ( 2d Cir . 1 99 5) . V an A lle n’ s pro s estatus do e s n ot c ur e his failure to raise spe cific issues on a ppeal be cause , as we explained in LoSacco , al th o u gh “appe llate cour

ts ge nera lly

do not hold pro s elitigants rig idly to the formal briefingstandards . . .

, we n ee d n o tm anu fa cture cl ai m s o f e rr o r f o r anap p el l an tp ro ce ed i n g pro s e , espec ially when he has ra ised an issue be low and ele cted not to pursue it on appe al.” 71 F.3d at 93 (internal c itation omitted). Be cause Van Allen ha s abandone d any challeng e to the district cour t’s order by failing t o i d en t i fy

th e i s s u es o nap p ea l , we n ee d n o tre v i ewth e d i s tri ctco urt ’s ru l i n g. Mo re ov e r, e ve n li be ra lly

c on str uin gVa n A lle n’ s f

ili ngin t his Court a s a br ie f, his c la ims fail. “We re view de novo a district cour t’s dismiss al of a

complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)( 6),3

construingthe complaint libera lly , acc eptingall fac tual alleg ations in the complaint as true, a nd draw ing a ll reasona

ble infer ence s in the plaintiff’s favor.” Chambers v. Time W arner, Inc
. , 282 F.3d 147, 152 ( 2d Cir. 2002). As the district cour t found, the Supreme Court’ s ruling in Ro sa rio v. Roc kefe ller , 410 U.S. 752 (1973), upholdinga similar timing provision of e lection law, g overns this ca se. As ther e is no meaning ful diffe renc e betwe en the pr ovision at issue in Ro sa rio and the one at issue in this case, ther e is no basis for a constitutional challeng e to New York Election L aw § 5- 304. To the extent that Van Allen’s c halleng e to the statute is distinguishable f rom the situation in Ro sa rio , in that he is challeng ing the eff ect of the delay on his campaign and not on his right to vote, he has fa iled to identify any basis for suc h a cha lleng e to the provision, as a ny delay in voter enr ollment does not preclude him from campa igning . Moreove r, bec ause the elec tion he wished to campaign for ha s passed a nd Van Allen ha s made no a lleg ation below or on appea l that he intends to campa ign f or the Independe nce Par

ty in subsequent elec tions, the action must be dismis sed as moot. See V an W ie v. Patak

i , 267 F.3d 109, 115 ( 2d Cir. 2001) (dismissing as moot where parties a sserted only that they might ag ain try

to chang e their pa

rty aff iliation). Finally , as the district cour t found, the cha lleng ed voter reg istration form states that
non-enr olled voters ar e per mitted to vote in Independe nce Par ty primaries. To the extent that Van Allen ha s claimed that he rec eived a 2007 notice and r eg istration form without a statement excepting the Independe nce Par ty from the e nrollment require ment, he has not a lleg ed any injury stemming fr om that notice as he is, in fact, an e nrolled member of the Independe nce Par

ty . Be cause he has not a lleg ed any injury from that notice, he has no standingto challeng e it. See Allen v. W

right , 4 68 U. S. 7 37 , 7 51 (1 98 4) (T o me e t th e sta nd ingre qu ir e me nts , “ [a] p la int if f m us t4

a lle g e pe rs on a l in

jur y fa ir ly tr a c e a ble to t he de fe nd ant’ s a lle g e dly

un lawf ul c on du c t and

lik e ly to be re dr e sse d b y

the re qu e ste d r e lie f. ” ); Ma c Do na ld v . S

afi r , 206 F.3d 183, 188 ( 2d Cir. 2000) (providingthat standingis a jurisdictional require ment). To t he e xt e ntt ha t Va n Al l e n i s a s s e r t i ng tha t he h as b een h arm ed b eca u se th e o m issio n o n the fo rm h ind ered h is ab il it yto in terest vo ters i n t he pa r t ypr i ort o t he pr i mary , t he c l a i m i s mootbe c a us e , a s no t e d a bove , t he e l e c t i on t ha t he s oug ht to affect h as p ass ed an d h e h as m ad e n o all egati o n that h e inten d s to cam p aign o r attem p t t o
re c o n s titu te th e co u n tyco m m itte e in th e fu tu re . S ee V a n W ie , 26 7 F
. 3d a t 11 5. For the fore g oing r easons, the judgment of the district cour t is hereby

AFF I RMED.
F OR TH E CO UR T: Catherine O ’Ha g an Wolfe, Clerk