The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
ADAM HOLLEY, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. CIV-24-656-R
)
OKLAHOMA SECRETARY OF STATE, )
et al., )
)
Defendants. )
ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s pro se Second Amended Complaint1 asserting a
claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for a violation of his constitutional rights. Pursuant to the
inherent power to manage its docket, the Court has reviewed the Second Amended
Complaint and finds that it should be dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a
claim. See Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for S. Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 307–08 (1989)
(“Section 1915(d), for example, authorizes courts to dismiss a ‘frivolous or malicious’
action, but there is little doubt they would have power to do so even in the absence of this
1 Defendants Secretary of State, Brian Bingman in his official capacity, and Josh Cockroft
in his official capacity filed a Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 7]. However, during the pendency
of the Motion, Plaintiff filed an “Amended Complaint” [Doc. No. 8] and then a “Second
Amended Complaint” [Doc. No. 9]. Because these two pleadings were filed close in time
on the same day and, apart from the title, appear to be substantially the same, the Court
assumes the Amended Complaint was filed in error. The Court will therefore treat the
Second Amended Complaint [Doc. No. 9] as the operative pleading. Because the filing of
an amended pleading “supersedes the original and renders it of no legal effect[,]” Davis v.
TXO Prod. Corp., 929 F.2d 1515, 1517 (10th Cir. 1991) (internal quotation omitted),
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is DENIED without prejudice to resubmission if
appropriate. Plaintiff is additionally instructed that any future amendments must comply
with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 and this Court’s Local Civil Rules.
statutory provision.”); Williams v. Madden, 9 F. App'x 996, 997 n.1 (10th Cir. 2001)
(noting agreement with Mallard); Webster v. Palk, No. 21-4057-JWB-GEB, 2021 WL
4893015, at *2 (D. Kan. Oct. 20, 2021) (“The court has inherent authority to dismiss a
frivolous complaint sua sponte even where, as here, Plaintiffs have paid the required filing
fee.”).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires a pleading to contain “a short and
plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” The purpose of
this requirement is “to give the opposing parties fair notice of the basis for the claims
against them so that they may respond and to allow the Court to conclude that the
allegations, if proven, show that the plaintiff is entitled to relief.” Mwangi v. Norman, No.
16-CV-0002-GPG, 2016 WL 153220, at *1 (D. Colo. Jan. 13, 2016) (citing Monument
Builders of Greater Kansas City, Inc. v. American Cemetery Ass'n of Kansas, 891 F.2d
1473, 1480 (10thCir. 1989)). Although “the pleading standard Rule 8 announces does not
require ‘detailed factual allegations,’ [] it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-
unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007)). Rather, a complaint must contain
“factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is
liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. Thus, typically, “to state a claim in federal court, a
complaint must explain what each defendant did to him or her; when the defendant did it;
how the defendant’s action harmed him or her; and, what specific legal right the plaintiff
believes the defendant violated.” Nasious v. Two Unknown B.I.C.E. Agents, at Arapahoe
Cnty. Just. Ctr., 492 F.3d 1158, 1163 (10th Cir. 2007).
In evaluating a complaint, all well-pleaded factual allegations are accepted as true
and viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Lane v. Simon, 495 F.3d 1182, 1186
(10th Cir. 2007). Additionally, where, as here, a litigant is proceeding pro se, the “pleadings
are to be construed liberally.” Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991).
However, “[t]he broad reading of the plaintiff’s complaint does not relieve the plaintiff of
the burden of alleging sufficient facts on which a recognized legal claim could be based.”
Id.
Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint2 does not meet these standards. The
Second Amended Complaint names as defendants the Oklahoma Secretary of State, the
Oklahoma Secretary of State Election Board, Brian Bingman in his official capacity as
Oklahoma Secretary of State, Josh Cockroft in his official capacity as Oklahoma Secretary
of State, and Paul Ziriax in his official capacity as Chief State Election Official. Official
capacity claims are treated as claims against the entity the individual represents, see
Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 166 (1985), and at least some of these defendants
therefore appear to be redundant.
Additionally, the Eleventh Amendment generally bars suits in federal court for
money damages against a state, its agencies, and state officers sued in their official
2 In evaluating whether Plaintiff has stated a claim, the Court is confined to evaluating the
allegations in the Second Amended Complaint and may not consider additional factual
allegations in Plaintiff’s brief in opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No.
12]. See Scott v. Hormel, No. CIV-18-395-SLP, 2019 WL 3935101, at *2 (W.D. Okla.
Aug. 20, 2019) (“To the extent Plaintiff includes new factual allegations in his Objection,
the new allegations are not determinative of whether Plaintiff adequately stated claims in
his Complaint.”).
capacity. Peterson v. Martinez, 707 F.3d 1197, 1205 (10th Cir. 2013). Although exceptions
exist where the state waives Eleventh Amendment immunity or if immunity is abrogated
by Congress, neither of those exceptions appear to apply here. Pettigrew v. Okla. ex rel.
Okla. Dep't of Public Safety, 722 F.3d 1209, 1212 (10th Cir. 2013); Okla. Stat. tit. 51 §
152.1(B); Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 345 (1979). Thus, to the extent Plaintiff’s Second
Amended Complaint requests money damages and other retrospective relief against the
state defendants, those defendants are immune under the Eleventh Amendment.
Apart from these issues, the allegations in the Second Amended Complaint are too
vague and conclusory to state a plausible claim. Plaintiff alleges that on June 28, 2022 the
Defendants “held an unconstitutional election process designed to insurrect the
Constitutional privileges of United States Citizens by removing or abridging the privileges
and ability of willing United States citizens to be represented on the ONLY legal ballot
which has power that changes the balances of power.” He goes on to assert that the State
has no records of “having filed or charged the plaintiff mentioned in this case for any due
cause for ineligibility to hold an elected office on the constitutional ballot of November
2022.” He also alleges that there was an “unconstitutional removal of eligible candidates,”
the defendants have “a practice of eliminating valid candidates for Federal, State, and Local
elections by means of the Unconstitutional Primary election systems,” and the “process
encouraged and promoted media bias by Griffin Media which chose who to show on their
debate stages.”
Although Plaintiff appears to be contending that election officials acted unlawfully
by eliminating or removing certain candidates for election, he fails to allege who the
candidates were, what office they were seeking, how or why they were purportedly
removed from the ballot, and who was involved in the alleged removal. There is no factual
description of the alleged practice or election system that Plaintiff believes is
unconstitutional and it is therefore impossible to discern the basis of Plaintiff's complaint.
Even liberally construed, Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint is devoid of a
coherent factual basis for any cognizable claim against any named defendant. Accordingly,
the Second Amended Complaint fails to state a claim and is DISMISSED without
prejudice. Because Plaintiff is a pro se litigant and it is unclear whether granting leave to
amend would be futile, the Court will permit Plaintiff to file an amended complaint within
21 days of the date of this Order that complies with Rule 8. If an amended complaint is not
timely filed, this action will be dismissed with prejudice without further notice.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 16" day of August, 2024.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE