Court Opinion

ID: 9916983
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-11 01:00:30.7921+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:26:16.644149
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-40325        Document: 00517029184             Page: 1      Date Filed: 01/10/2024

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit                                        United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit

                                     ____________                                     FILED
                                                                               January 10, 2024
                                      No. 23-40325
                                                                                 Lyle W. Cayce
                                     ____________                                     Clerk

   Patrice Viera; Kevin Henry; Brittany Darbonne,

                                                                  Plaintiffs—Appellants,

                                            versus

   Joyce Hudman, Brazoria County Clerk; Matt Sebesta, Jr.,
   Brazoria County Judge; Donald Payne, Brazoria County Commissioner
   Precinct 1; Ryan Cade, Brazoria County Commissioner Precinct 2; Stacy
   Adams, Brazoria County Commissioner Precinct 3; David Linder,
   Brazoria County Commissioner Precinct 4,

                                              Defendants—Appellees.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Southern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 3:22-CV-386
                     ______________________________

   Before Jones, Haynes, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Patrice Vieira, Kevin Henry, and Brittney Darbonne claim that
   election officials in Brazoria County, Texas, violated the United States
   Constitution by certifying the allegedly fraudulent results of the 2020

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-40325        Document: 00517029184              Page: 2      Date Filed: 01/10/2024

                                         No. 23-40325

   election. 1 The district court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject-
   matter jurisdiction and denied leave to amend. Because neither the original
   complaint nor the proposed amended complaint contained plausible
   allegations of particularized injury, we AFFIRM.
                                               I.
           In November 2022, Vieira, Henry, and Darbonne filed a pro se
   complaint against various Brazoria County officials seeking to invalidate the
   results of the November 2020 election. Specifically, Vieira, Henry, and
   Darbonne claimed that Brazoria County used voting machines that were not
   properly certified by the Election Assistance Commission under 52 U.S.C.
   § 20971, and that Brazoria County officials therefore violated the First,
   Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments by certifying the fraudulent election
   results produced by these allegedly uncertified voting machines. The officials
   moved to dismiss. Vieira, Henry, and Darbonne opposed the motion, and
   then, while the motion to dismiss was still pending, sought leave to file an
   amended complaint. The district court dismissed the complaint for lack of
   subject-matter jurisdiction on the basis that Vieira, Henry, and Darbonne
   lacked standing and denied the motion for leave to amend as futile. Vieira,
   Henry, and Darbonne timely appealed.
                                              II.
           We review de novo the district court’s order dismissing the complaint
   under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of standing. Cornerstone Christian Sch. v. Univ.
   Interscholastic League, 563 F.3d 127, 133 (5th Cir. 2009). Vieira, Henry, and

           _____________________
           1
             The case caption uses the names “Viera” and “Brittany” because that is how
   they were spelled in Appellants’ opening filing in the district court. Our understanding is
   that the correct spellings are “Vieira” and “Brittney,” so we use those throughout the
   opinion.

                                               2
Case: 23-40325      Document: 00517029184          Page: 3   Date Filed: 01/10/2024

                                    No. 23-40325

   Darbonne—as the parties seeking to invoke federal jurisdiction—bear the
   burden of establishing standing. Crane v. Johnson, 783 F.3d 244, 251 (5th Cir.
   2015). We also review the district court’s denial of leave to amend based on
   futility de novo. Thomas v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 832 F.3d 586, 590 (5th Cir.
   2016). Because Vieira, Henry, and Darbonne are proceeding pro se, we
   construe the complaint “liberally” and hold it “to less stringent standards
   than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89,
   94 (2007) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)).
                                        III.
          To establish Article III standing, a complaint must plausibly allege a
   “particularized” injury. Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992).
   Under a very liberal reading of their pleadings, Vieira, Henry, and Darbonne
   allege two forms of injury: that the county certified “fraudulent” election
   results, and that their votes were “diluted or not counted.” Neither confers
   standing.
          It is well recognized that a plaintiff “claiming only harm to his and
   every citizen’s interest in proper application of the Constitution and laws,
   and seeking relief that no more directly and tangibly benefits him than it does
   the public at large,” lacks standing. Lujan, 504 U.S. at 573-74. Appellants’
   claim that they were injured because Brazoria County officials failed to
   comply with the law by certifying “fraudulent” election results falls squarely
   within this category of generalized grievances that federal courts lack
   jurisdiction to adjudicate. Indeed, our court reached this exact conclusion in
   Hotze v. Hudspeth, in which we explained that these sorts of broad claims
   concerning “the ‘integrity’ of the election process” are “far too generalized
   to warrant standing.” 16 F.4th 1121, 1124 (5th Cir. 2021).
          As for their asserted vote-dilution injury, Vieira, Henry, and
   Darbonne are correct that an injury to a citizen’s right to vote resulting from

                                          3
Case: 23-40325      Document: 00517029184          Page: 4    Date Filed: 01/10/2024

                                    No. 23-40325

   “dilution by a false tally,” “a refusal to count votes from arbitrarily selected
   precincts,” or “stuffing of the ballot box” can confer standing. Baker v. Carr,
   369 U.S. 186, 208 (1962) (citations omitted). But only where the voters have
   plausibly “allege[d] facts showing disadvantage to themselves as
   individuals.” Id. at 206. As the district court properly found, Vieira, Henry,
   and Darbonne have presented no facts plausibly alleging how the use of
   allegedly uncertified voting machines led to their votes being diluted or
   uncounted. Rather, they have presented only conclusory allegations and
   legal conclusions insufficient to establish standing, even in a pro se
   complaint. See Coleman v. Lincoln Par. Det. Ctr., 858 F.3d 307, 309 (5th Cir.
   2017) (“[E]ven for pro se plaintiffs, . . . conclusory allegations or legal
   conclusions masquerading as factual conclusions will not suffice” to prevent
   dismissal).
                                         IV.
          Vieira, Henry, and Darbonne also sought leave to amend their
   complaint to include allegations of “more election malfeasance” during the
   2022 election and to add the Brazoria County Sheriff as a defendant. But
   allegations of additional misconduct in 2022 do nothing to cure the lack of
   plausible allegations showing injury caused by the alleged misconduct in
   2020. Nor does adding a new defendant. Thus, the district court was correct
   in finding that the proposed amended complaint was futile. See U.S. ex rel.
   Spicer v. Westbrook, 751 F.3d 354, 368 (5th Cir. 2014); In re Connect Transp.,
   LLC, 825 F. App’x 150, 155 (5th Cir. 2020) (affirming denial of leave to
   amend as futile where allegations in proposed amended complaint, “though
   new, do nothing to cure the deficiencies of the first [] complaint”).
          On appeal, Vieira, Henry, and Darbonne contend that the proposed
   amended complaint that they presented to the district court “was more
   accurately a motion to supplement their pleadings, with a new grievance,

                                          4
Case: 23-40325        Document: 00517029184         Page: 5   Date Filed: 01/10/2024

                                     No. 23-40325

   than an effort to amend the complaint to resolve any alleged deficiencies.”
   Therefore, they request that they be allowed to amend their complaint to add
   a claim under the Civil Rights Act, which they claim will “confer
   jurisdiction.” But this only underscores the futility of allowing amendment.
   Adding a new statutory claim does not fix the lack of a plausibly alleged injury
   in fact.
                                         V.
              For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is
   AFFIRMED.

                                          5