Hoffman v. State of California

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: May 28, 2024
• Docket: 5:24-cv-00983
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION 7 8 KRISTIN HOFFMAN, Case No. 5:24-cv-00983-EJD 9 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO DISMISS; GRANTING MOTION TO 10 v. STRIKE 11 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., Re: Dkt. Nos. 13, 14, 18, 25 Defendants. 12 13 Pro se Plaintiff, Kristin Hoffman (“Hoffman”), filed suit against Defendants, State of 14 California (“California”), San Benito County (“San Benito”), and Santa Clara County (“Santa 15 Clara”) (collectively, “Defendants”), alleging that Defendants’ failure to count her vote in the 16 November 2020 General Election (“2020 Election”) violated the Nineteenth Amendment. Compl., 17 ECF No. 1. Before the Court are three motions to dismiss filed by the three Defendants. 18 California Mot. to Dismiss (“Cal. MTD”), ECF No. 13; San Benito Mot. to Dismiss (“San Benito 19 MTD”), ECF No. 18; Santa Clara Mot. to Dismiss (“Santa Clara MTD”), ECF No. 14. Plaintiff 20 filed an opposition to San Benito and Santa Clara’s motions, to which they filed replies. Opp’n to 21 San Benito MTD, ECF No. 21; Reply in. Supp. of San Benito MTD (“Reply ISO San Benito 22 MTD”), ECF No. 27; Opp’n to Santa Clara MTD, ECF No. 20; Reply in Supp. of Santa Clara 23 MTD (“Reply ISO Santa Clara MTD”), ECF No. 22. Plaintiff did not file an opposition to 24 California’s motion. See Notice of Plaintiff's Failure to File Opposition, ECF No. 26. 25 Upon careful review of the relevant documents, the Court finds this matter suitable for 26 decision without oral arguments pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b). For the following reasons, 27 the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motions to dismiss with leave to amend. I. BACKGROUND 1 Hoffman alleges that her vote in the 2020 Election was never counted by the San Benito 2 County Election Office. See Compl. Hoffman’s allegation arises from two circumstances: (1) her 3 double voter registration, and (2) the use of different tenses in emails confirming the receipt of her 4 ballots. Id. 5 First, Hoffman alleges that her 2020 Election ballot was not counted because she was 6 erroneously registered in two counties: Santa Clara and San Benito. Id. at 2. Hoffman was a 7 registered voter in Santa Clara until she moved to San Benito in 2016. Id. Hoffman re-registered 8 in San Benito after her move, but she continued to receive two mail-in ballots from both counties, 9 one containing an incorrect spelling of her name. Id. 10 Second, Hoffman alleges that her ballot was not counted because the confirmation email 11 for her 2020 Election ballot used a future tense. Id. at 3. Plaintiff voted in-person during the 2020 12 Election, after which time she received an email from BallotTrax, a statewide system that allows 13 voters to track and receive email notifications on the status of their ballot. Id. at 2–3. The email 14 Hoffman received indicated that her ballot “will be counted.” Id. at 3. Hoffman subsequently 15 voted in three other elections: the September 2021 Gubernatorial Recall Election, the June 2022 16 Primary Election, and the November 2022 General Election. Id. at 2–3. Hoffman received 17 BallotTrax emails following those votes as well, all of which indicated that her ballot was 18 “counted.” Id. 1 19 Hoffman reached out to various agencies to convey her concerns, including the San Benito 20 County District Attorney, the San Benito County Sheriff, the San Benito County Board of 21 Supervisors, the California Attorney General’s Office, the California Secretary of State’s Office, 22 the United States Attorney’s Office, and various state legislators. Id. at 3–6. Regarding her 23 24

25 1 Hoffman also includes in her complaint additional factual allegations unrelated to her request for relief for injuries arising from the 2020 Election, such as an exhibit with an email to the San 26 Benito County office of County Counsel with a request for a line-item breakdown of a $44,706 reward they received from the Center for Tech and Civil Life for the administration of elections 27 during the covid-19 pandemic, as well as communications regarding fixing her double-registration status ahead of the March 2024 Primary Election. See Compl. at 5–7 1 double-ballot concerns, an employee from the San Benito County Registrar’s Office contacted 2 Hoffman, indicating that the double registration was due to a turnover in state voter databases, 3 informing Hoffman of what steps they had taken to re-register voters, and advising that they had 4 notified Santa Clara County of the double registration and the County would take steps to remove 5 her duplicative registration. Id. at 4. Regarding her concern that her ballot was not counted, in 6 response to a California Public Records Act Request, the San Benito County Counsel’s Office sent 7 Plaintiff her earlier correspondence with the San Benito County Registrar’s Office, a copy of her 8 Voter Information Certificate, and a vote tabulation spreadsheet with an affirmative indication that 9 her vote was counted in the form of a “Y” in the “Vote Counted” column. Id. at 5. 10 Hoffman filed this action on February 20, 2024, alleging that these circumstances violate 11 the Nineteenth Amendment. Id. at 1. As relief, Hoffman requests an order directing Defendants 12 to provide “[a]ny and ALL documentation IMAGINABLE . . . to prove that [her] vote in the 2020 13 Presidential Election was cast AND counted” and “[i]n-person access to ALL electronic voting 14 equipment.” Id. at 7. In the alternative, Hoffman asks the Court to decertify the 2020 Election 15 results at the local, state, and federal levels. Id. 16 II. LEGAL STANDARD 17 A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) is a challenge to the court’s subject matter 18 jurisdiction. The party mounting a Rule 12(b)(1) challenge may bring a facial challenge and show 19 that the on the face of the pleadings, the court lacks jurisdiction, or may present extrinsic evidence 20 for the Court’s consideration. See White v. Lee, 227 F.3d 1214, 1242 (9th Cir. 2000) (“Rule 21 12(b)(1) jurisdictional attacks can be either facial or factual”). “In a facial attack, the challenger 22 asserts that the allegations contained in a complaint are insufficient on their face to invoke federal 23 jurisdiction.” Safe Air for Everyone v. Meyer, 373 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2004). In ruling on a 24 Rule 12(b)(1) motion attacking the complaint on its face, the Court accepts the allegations of the 25 complaint as true. See, e.g., Wolfe v. Strankman, 392 F.3d 358, 362 (9th Cir. 2004). Plaintiff 26 bears the burden of demonstrating that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction to hear the action. 27 See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994); Stock W., Inc. v. Confederated 1 Tribes, 873 F.2d 1221, 1225 (9th Cir. 1989). 2 Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by lawyers. 3 Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007) (per curiam) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 4 (1976)). But still, even pro se pleadings “must meet some minimum threshold in providing a 5 defendant with notice of what it is that it allegedly did wrong” and how they are entitled to relief. 6 Brazil v. U.S. Dep't of Navy, 66 F.3d 193, 199 (9th Cir. 1995). 7 If the court concludes that a motion to dismiss should be granted, the “court should grant 8 leave to amend even if no request to amend the pleading was made, unless it determines that the 9 pleading could not possibly be cured by the allegation of other facts.” Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 10 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (quotation omitted); see also Leadsinger, Inc. v. BMG Music 11 Pub., 512 F.3d 522, 532 (9th Cir. 2008). 12 III. DISCUSSION 13 A. Motion to Strike Sur-Reply 14 As an initial matter, Santa Clara moves to strike Hoffman’s unauthorized sur-reply to its 15 motion to dismiss. Admin. Mot. to Strike, ECF No. 25; Hoffman’s Reply to Santa Clara’s Reply, 16 ECF No. 23. 17 Civil Local Rule 7-3(d) provides: “Once a reply is filed, no additional memoranda, papers 18 or letters may be filed without prior court approval.” Civil L.R. 7-3(d). Santa Clara filed its 19 motion on March 13, 2024, Hoffman filed her opposition on March 21, 2024, and Santa Clara 20 filed its reply on March 25, 2024. Santa Clara MTD; Opp’n to Santa Clara MTD; Reply ISO 21 Santa Clara MTD. Without seeking leave, on March 27, 2024, Hoffman filed a document titled 22 “Plaintiff’s Reply to Santa Clara County’s Reply.” ECF No. 23. Hoffman has not since sought 23 retroactive leave. 24 Because Hoffman filed an additional brief without leave after Santa Clara’s reply had been 25 filed, the Court GRANTS Santa Clara’s motion to strike this sur-reply. 26 B. Motions to Dismiss 27 Moving to Defendants’ motions to dismiss, the Court finds dismissal proper under Article 1 III for the failure to establish standing and mootness.2 2 1. Standing 3 “The plaintiff has the burden of establishing the three elements of Article III standing: (1) 4 he or she has suffered an injury in fact that is concrete and particularized, and actual or imminent; 5 (2) the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct; and (3) the injury is likely to be 6 redressed by a favorable court decision.” Salmon Spawning & Recovery All. v. Gutierrez, 545 7 F.3d 1220, 1225 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560–61 8 (1992)). To satisfy the third element, a plaintiff “must show that it is ‘likely, as opposed to merely 9 speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.’” M.S. v. Brown, 902 F.3d 10 1076, 1083 (9th Cir. 2018) (citation omitted). Where “a favorable decision would not require the 11 defendant to redress the plaintiff’s claimed injury, the plaintiff cannot demonstrate redressability.” 12 Id.; see also Townley v. Miller, 722 F.3d 1128, 1134 (9th Cir. 2013) (“The proposition that 13 plaintiffs must seek relief that actually improves their position is a well-established principle.”); 14 see also Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83, 107 (1998) (“Relief that does 15 not remedy the injury suffered cannot bootstrap a plaintiff into federal court; that is the very 16 essence of the redressability requirement.”). Courts must assume the merits of a plaintiff's claim 17 when considering Article III standing. Zeiger v. WellPet LLC, 304 F. Supp. 3d 837, 843 (N.D. 18 Cal. 2018). 19 Defendants argue that Hoffman lacks standing because the alleged injury—Hoffman’s 20 ballot not being counted—would not be redressed by being granted access to additional documents 21 or by decertifying the 2020 Election at the local, state, and federal level. Cal. MTD 8; Santa Clara 22 MTD 10; San Benito MTD 11. Hoffman did not address this argument in her oppositions. 23 The Court agrees that Hoffman has failed to establish standing. Hoffman’s requests for 24

25 2 Santa Clara also filed a request that the Court take judicial notice of Hoffman’s voter registration records to argue that her vote was indeed counted, and that her double-registration issue was in 26 part due to Hoffman erroneously registering with a different birthdate. Req. for J. Notice, ECF No. 15 (requesting judicial notice of voting records); Santa Clara MTD 4–6 (same). The Court 27 finds Hoffman’s voter registration records irrelevant to its Article III inquiry and thus declines to rule on Santa Clara’s request at this time. 1 additional information and de-certification of the 2020 Election would do nothing to remedy the 2 allegation that her vote was not counted or improve her position in any way. First, Defendants’ 3 alleged failure to count Hoffman’s ballot cannot be remedied by the disenfranchisement of 4 millions of other voters who cast ballots at the local, state, and federal level in the 2020 Election. 5 See, e.g., Bowyer v. Ducey, 506 F. Supp. 3d 699, 712 (D. Ariz. 2020) (“To give Plaintiffs the relief 6 they desire would disenfranchise the nearly 3.4 million Arizonans that voted in the 2020 General 7 Election. Under Plaintiffs’ theory of dilution, this would transform all of the alleged diluted votes 8 from being ‘diluted’ to being destroyed.”). Second, Hoffman’s request for access to documents 9 and machines would serve no purpose absent other viable relief. See, e.g., King v. Whitmer, 505 10 F. Supp. 3d 720, 730 (E.D. Mich. 2020) (“[T]he evidence Plaintiffs seek to gather by inspecting 11 voting machines and software and security camera footage only would be useful if an avenue 12 remained open for them to challenge the election results.”). 13 2. Mootness 14 The inability to review moot cases derives from Article III's requirement that a “case or 15 controversy” exist between the parties. DeFunis v. Odegaard, 416 U.S. 312, 316 (1974) (quoting 16 North Carolina v. Rice, 404 U.S. 244, 246 (1971)). Federal courts are “without power to decide 17 questions that cannot affect the rights of litigants in the case before them.” Id. 18 Defendants argue that Hoffman’s claim is moot in part because the time to contest the 19 2020 Election in California expired in December 2020, the terms of many officials voted into 20 office in November 2020 have expired or will face re-election in the coming months, and the 21 Court is unable to provide relief for Hoffman’s alleged injury. Cal. MTD 9; Santa Clara MTD 10– 22 11; San Benito MTD 15–16. Hoffman did not address Defendants’ arguments in her oppositions. 23 The Court agrees that Hoffman’s claim is moot. Since the election has “come and gone,” 24 there is simply no present controversy between Hoffman and Defendants. Koller v. Harris, 312 F. 25 Supp. 3d 814, 823 (N.D. Cal. 2018) (quoting Arizona Green Party v. Reagan, 838 F.3d 983, 987 26 (9th Cir. 2016)); see also, e.g., Bowyer v. Ducey, 506 F. Supp. 3d 699, 712 (D. Ariz. 2020). 27 Further, as discussed in the section prior, resolution of this case would not affect the rights of the 1 litigants in this case, as the Court cannot undo the failure to count Hoffman’s ballot in an election 2 || that took place nearly four years ago now. See, e.g., Bowyer, 506 F. Supp. at 712; King, 505 F. 3 Supp. 3d at 730. 4 kK 5 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motions to dismiss for failure to establish 6 || standing and mootness.? In light of Hoffman’s status as a pro se plaintiff, the Court will exercise 7 its discretion to allow Hoffman the opportunity to file an amended complaint curing the 8 deficiencies identified in this Order. Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1127; Erickson, 551 U.S. at 94. 9 || IV. CONCLUSION 10 Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motions to dismiss and 11 GRANTS Santa Clara’s motion to strike. If Hoffman chooses to file an amended complaint, she 12 || must do so by June 25, 2024.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

v 14 || Dated: May 28, 2024

15 eOOD. □ EDWARD J. DAVILA 17 United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 || 3 Because the Court dismisses for lack of standing and mootness, the Court need not address Defendants’ remaining arguments. However, the Court notes that Hoffman’s Nineteenth 23 Amendment claim, which would be analyzed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, is also precluded on its face by the applicable two-year statute of limitations. See Klein v. City of Beverly Hills, 865 F.3d 24 1276, 1278 (9th Cir. 2017) (stating that the statute of limitations for Section 1983 claims in California is two years). Further, the complaint suffers deficiencies under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure 5 to plead facts sufficient to state a claim given that Hoffman does not allege that her vote was denied on account of sex and has pled no facts to suggest such discrimination, let alone pled facts 26 || to sufficiently allege public entity liability under Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978). See, e.g., Sherman v. Hill, Case No. 5:22-cv-01211-SSS-JDE, 2022 27 WL 17345926, at * (C.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2022) (dismissing Nineteenth Amendment claim where complaint made no mention of “being prevented from voting on the basis of [plaintiffs] sex”). 28 || Case No.: 5:24-cv-00983-EJD ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO DISMISS; GRANTING MOTION TO STRIKE