Court Opinion

ID: 9899162
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-16 01:00:39.456381+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:00.605224
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-30809        Document: 00516969515             Page: 1      Date Filed: 11/15/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit                                              United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                              Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________
                                                                                            FILED
                                                                                     November 15, 2023
                                      No. 22-30809
                                     ____________                                      Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                            Clerk
   Jacques L. Soudelier,

                                                                    Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                            versus

   Office of the Secretary of State, Louisiana; R. Kyle
   Ardoin, Secretary of State, Individually,

                                              Defendants—Appellees.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Eastern District of Louisiana
                              USDC No. 2:22-CV-2436
                     ______________________________

   Before Jones, Barksdale, and Elrod, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Jacques L. Soudelier, proceeding pro se in the district court and on
   appeal, filed this lawsuit against the Office of the Louisiana Secretary of
   State and R. Kyle Ardoin, the Louisiana Secretary of State, claiming that
   they violated both federal and Louisiana law by using voting systems that
   were not properly certified and that were vulnerable to tampering. The
   district court dismissed Soudelier’s complaint, concluding that Soudelier
           _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-30809      Document: 00516969515          Page: 2   Date Filed: 11/15/2023

                                    No. 22-30809

   lacked standing. We agree with the district court that the complaint should
   be dismissed, and we AFFIRM.
                                          I
          Soudelier filed this lawsuit in August 2022 in the Eastern District of
   Louisiana against the Office of the Louisiana Secretary of State and the
   Secretary of State, R. Kyle Ardoin. Soudelier’s complaint contained two
   counts. Count I claimed that Appellees violated various provisions of the
   Louisiana Election Code and the Help America Vote Act by employing
   voting systems—specifically those leased from Dominion Voting
   Systems—that were not properly certified and that were vulnerable to
   hacking. Count II claimed that Appellees were required under 52 U.S.C. §
   20701 to preserve records from the November 3, 2020, election but were
   “running out the clock” until the mandatory two-year preservation period
   expired. The complaint further claimed that Soudelier had the right to
   access those records through discovery. The complaint also alluded to
   violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments resulting from
   Louisiana’s use of Dominion voting machines. Soudelier later clarified that
   these claimed constitutional violations formed the “core” of his lawsuit.
   The complaint requested various forms of relief, including an “emergency
   injunction” prohibiting the use of any of Louisiana’s voting machines in
   future elections and requiring Appellees to preserve records from the 2020
   election.
          Several weeks after filing his complaint, Soudelier moved for a
   temporary restraining order. The district court denied his request, finding
   that Soudelier had failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits
   because the statutes under which he sought relief did not confer a private
   right of action. The district court further found that Soudelier’s allusions to

                                         2
Case: 22-30809      Document: 00516969515          Page: 3    Date Filed: 11/15/2023

                                    No. 22-30809

   constitutional violations failed to plausibly allege a non-conclusory and non-
   speculative claim.
          Shortly thereafter, Appellees filed a motion to dismiss Soudelier’s
   complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
   The district court granted the motion under Rule 12(b)(1) and dismissed
   Soudelier’s complaint in its entirety on the ground that Soudelier lacked
   Article III standing. This was because Soudelier’s constitutional claim was
   “neither concrete nor particularized,” but rather amounted to a
   “generalized grievance about the conduct of the government.” Soudelier v.
   Dep’t of State La., No. CV 22-2436, 2022 WL 17283008, at *4 (E.D. La.
   Nov. 29, 2022) (citation omitted) (alteration adopted). Likewise, because
   the statutes Soudelier cited in his complaint did not confer a private right of
   action, Congress had not “create[d] a statutory right or entitlement the
   alleged deprivation of which can confer standing to sue.” Id. (citation
   omitted). Soudelier timely appealed.
                                          II
          We review the district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss under
   Rule 12(b)(1) de novo, “just as we would a dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6).”
   T. B. ex rel. Bell v. Nw. Indep. Sch. Dist., 980 F.3d 1047, 1050 (5th Cir.
   2020). Taking the complaint’s well-pleaded factual allegations as true, we
   “view them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.”              Lane v.
   Halliburton, 529 F.3d 548, 557 (5th Cir. 2008). “[W]e may ‘affirm the
   district court’s judgment on any grounds supported by the record.’” T. B.,
   980 F.3d at 1050 n.2 (quoting United States ex rel. Farmer v. City of Hous.,
   523 F.3d 333, 338 n.8 (5th Cir. 2008)). To survive a 12(b)(6) motion, “[a]
   plaintiff’s complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as
   true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Stratta v. Roe,
   961 F.3d 340, 349 (5th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks and citation

                                          3
Case: 22-30809         Document: 00516969515             Page: 4       Date Filed: 11/15/2023

                                         No. 22-30809

   omitted). “A claim is facially plausible if the pleaded factual content
   ‘allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is
   liable for the misconduct alleged.’” Id. at 349–50 (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
   556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)).
                                               III
           Soudelier purported to bring claims under HAVA, the Louisiana
   Election Code, and federal law regarding retention of election records. And
   while he did not expressly state as much, he also alluded to claims arising
   under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. For the reasons explained
   below, under none of these theories has he stated a claim upon which relief
   can be granted. 1
           First, as to the statutes Soudelier cites, none contain a private right
   of action under which his claims can be brought.                    The district court
   correctly determined as much in both its order denying Soudelier’s request
   for a temporary restraining order and in its order dismissing his complaint.
   Indeed, on appeal, Soudelier does not contest this point.
           The complaint references several provisions from the Louisiana
   Election Code that govern, inter alia, the Secretary’s approval of state
   voting systems. The thrust of Soudelier’s argument seems to be that
         _____________________
           1
              The district court ruled only on Appellees’ 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss. Here,
   however, “Rule 12(b)(6) provides a clearer basis for dismissal and we affirm on that
   ground.” Morales-Garza v. Lorenzo-Giguere, 277 F. App’x 444, 446 (5th Cir. 2008)
   (unpublished); see also Scott v. Fiesta Auto Ctr. of San Antonio, 273 F.3d 1095, 2001 WL
   1085192, at *1 (5th Cir. 2001) (unpublished) (“Generally, if it appears from the face of the
   complaint that a federal claim is without merit, the court should dismiss for failure to
   state a claim, and not on jurisdictional grounds.”).

                                                4
Case: 22-30809      Document: 00516969515               Page: 5     Date Filed: 11/15/2023

                                         No. 22-30809

   Appellees have failed to fulfil their statutory obligations by allegedly failing
   to oversee or control the use of Dominion voting machines. But “the
   Louisiana Election Code does not provide for a citizens suit, or ‘qui tam
   action’ for the enforcement of regulatory statutes against violators.” Treen
   v. Republican Party of La., 768 So. 2d 273, 279 (La. Ct. App. 2000).
   Soudelier “simply has no cause of action against” Appellees “if they violate
   the Louisiana Election Code.” Id.
          Neither of the federal statutes contain an express private right of
   action either. And it is well-established that a statute confers no implied
   private right of action absent congressional intent to provide both a private
   right and private remedy. Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275, 286 (2001).
   Statutory text and structure form the touchstone of that inquiry, and
   “[s]tatutes that focus on the person regulated rather than the individuals
   protected create no implication of an intent to confer rights on a particular
   class of persons.”        Id. at 289 (internal quotation marks and citation
   omitted); see also Gonzaga Univ. v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273, 287 (2002).
          HAVA establishes standards for the administration of federal
   elections and provides two enforcement mechanisms, neither of which help
   Soudelier. First, the Attorney General can bring civil actions against states
   or   jurisdictions   to     enforce     HAVA’s       “election    technology   and
   administration requirements.” 52 U.S.C. § 21111. Second, states receiving
   payment under HAVA must establish administrative complaint procedures
   that any person may use to report violations. Id. § 21112. However,
   nowhere does HAVA permit private plaintiffs to seek the relief Soudelier
   requests. Tex. Voters All. v. Dall. Cnty., 495 F. Supp. 3d 441, 459 (E.D. Tex.
   2020) (“Simply by its terms, HAVA does not create a private right of
   action.”); Morales-Garza v. Lorenzo-Giguere, 277 F. App’x 444, 446 (5th
   Cir. 2008) (unpublished) (same). And HAVA does not contain any implied
   right of action, because “[i]t is canonical that ‘Congress’s creation of

                                              5
Case: 22-30809      Document: 00516969515          Page: 6       Date Filed: 11/15/2023

                                    No. 22-30809

   specific means of enforcing [a] statute indicates that it did not intend to
   allow an additional remedy—a private right of action—that it did not
   expressly mention at all.’” Tex. Voters All., 495 F. Supp. 3d at 460 (quoting
   Stokes v. Sw. Airlines, 887 F.3d 199, 203 (5th Cir. 2018)).
          Nor can Soudelier find a private right of action in federal election
   records provisions. His complaint cites 52 U.S.C. § 20701, which provides
   that “[e]very 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” various federal offices, including the
   President, “are voted for.” The complaint then cites 52 U.S.C. § 20705,
   which confers jurisdiction on federal district courts to compel the
   production of election records requested by the Attorney General. See also
   52 U.S.C. § 20703. What these statutory provisions do not do is evince any
   intent by Congress to confer a private right of action on plaintiffs like
   Soudelier. The text makes no mention of any private right of action, and
   the provisions focus on “the person regulated” rather than “the individuals
   protected.” Sandoval, 532 U.S. at 288; see also Fox v. Lee, No. 4:18CV529-
   MW/CAS, 2019 WL 13141701, at *1 (N.D. Fla. Apr. 2, 2019) (“In a word,
   52 U.S.C. § 20701 does not confer a private right of action on Plaintiffs.”).
   To the extent that Soudelier relies on these provisions to support his claims
   under Count II of his complaint, his reliance is misplaced.
          Second, to the extent Soudelier’s complaint claimed violations of his
   constitutional rights—a theory he continues to press on appeal—his claims
   are both speculative and conclusory. The district court concluded as much
   in its order denying Soudelier’s temporary restraining order, and we agree.
   A complaint fails to state a claim where its factual allegations do not “raise a
   right to relief above the speculative level.” Montoya v. FedEx Ground
   Package Sys., Inc., 614 F.3d 145, 148 (5th Cir. 2010) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp.
   v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). “[U]nadorned, the-defendant-

                                          6
Case: 22-30809      Document: 00516969515           Page: 7   Date Filed: 11/15/2023

                                     No. 22-30809

   unlawfully-harmed-me accusation[s]” will not suffice. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at
   677.   Here, Soudelier’s argument that Louisiana’s continued use of
   “uncertified [voting] machines is a violation” of his constitutional rights,
   supported by his allegation that the voting systems may have been hacked,
   is a bare conclusion supported by nothing more than unadorned
   speculation. This is insufficient to state a claim upon which the district
   court could grant relief.
                                 *        *         *
          The district court correctly dismissed Soudelier’s complaint.
   Accordingly, we AFFIRM.

                                          7