USCA11 Case: 20-14813 Date Filed: 08/06/2021 Page: 1 of 8
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________
No. 20-14813 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:20-cv-05155-TCB
L. LIN WOOD,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
BRAD RAFFENSPERGER, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees. ________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia ________________________
(August 6, 2021)
Before MARTIN, JORDAN, and GRANT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
L. Lin Wood, Jr. appeals the district court’s dismissal of his lawsuit against
various Georgia state election officials. After careful consideration, we affirm the USCA11 Case: 20-14813 Date Filed: 08/06/2021 Page: 2 of 8
district court’s ruling because Wood is without Article III standing to make the
claims he asserts in this action.
I
The district court described this case as “the latest in a series of cases
associated with Wood that seek to challenge aspects of the 2020 election cycle.”
On December 18, 2020, Wood, then a registered Georgia voter, sued Brad
Raffensperger, Georgia’s Secretary of State, along with members of the Georgia
State Election Board in their official capacities (“Defendants”). Wood sought
declaratory relief and an injunction “halting” Georgia’s January 5, 2021, runoff
election because he alleged the election was proceeding in a manner contrary to
Georgia’s election laws and the U.S. Constitution.
Wood alleged that Defendants authorized four unlawful procedures for use
in the election: (1) the signature verification process for absentee ballots, (2) the
processing of absentee ballots prior to election day, (3) the use of drop boxes for
absentee ballots, and (4) the use of Dominion Voting Systems Corporation’s voting
machines. Based on these allegations, Wood brought three claims. First, he
alleged the procedures violated his equal protection and voting rights, as he said he
planned to vote in person in the election, and these procedures would dilute his
vote and cause his vote to be treated differently. Second, Wood alleged the
procedures violated his due process rights because the procedures were “defective
2 USCA11 Case: 20-14813 Date Filed: 08/06/2021 Page: 3 of 8
and unlawful” and affected the “integrity of the election.” Last, he alleged the
procedures violated the Guarantee Clause of the Constitution, which says the
United States “shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of
Government.” U.S. Const. Art. IV, § 4. In Wood’s view, the procedures he
identified violated the Guarantee Clause because they did “not provide for the
certainty of a free and fair election.”
The district court dismissed Wood’s lawsuit for lack of jurisdiction, as the
court found Wood did not have Article III standing to sue. With regard to the
equal protection and due process claims, the district court found that Wood failed
to demonstrate a particularized injury. The court noted other deficiencies for these
claims as well. The district court then found that Wood lacked standing to bring
his Guarantee Clause claim because the Guarantee Clause makes a guarantee of
republican government only to the states and thus does not confer any rights on
individuals. This is Wood’s appeal.1
1 Two issues arose while this appeal was pending. First, this Court directed the parties to address whether this appeal is moot, and thus whether we lack jurisdiction, “given that the January 5, 2021, election with respect to which Wood seeks relief has already occurred.” In response, Wood says the appeal is not moot because the controversy is capable of repetition yet evading review and because he seeks nominal damages. Defendants argue that the appeal is moot because the election has “come and gone” and none of the exceptions to the mootness doctrine applies. Because we hold Wood lacked Article III standing to sue, we need not reach the question of whether the appeal is moot. See Sinochem Int’l Co. v. Malay. Int’l Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422, 431, 127 S. Ct. 1184, 1191 (2007) (“[T]here is no mandatory ‘sequencing of jurisdictional issues.’”).
Second, Defendants moved for leave to supplement the appellate record with material showing Wood did not actually vote in the election, which Defendants say “establishes beyond
3 USCA11 Case: 20-14813 Date Filed: 08/06/2021 Page: 4 of 8
II
On appeal, Wood says the district court erred in dismissing his lawsuit for
lack of Article III standing. We review de novo whether a plaintiff has Article III
standing. See Wood v. Raffensperger, 981 F.3d 1307, 1313–16 (11th Cir. 2020).
To show he has standing, a plaintiff must demonstrate he suffered an injury in fact
that is fairly traceable to the defendant’s actions and likely to be redressed by a
favorable decision. Id. at 1314 (citing Jacobson v. Fla. Sec’y of State, 974 F.3d
1236, 1245 (11th Cir. 2020)). An injury in fact is one that is concrete,
particularized, and either actual or imminent. Id. (citing Trichell v. Midland Credit
Mgmt., Inc., 964 F.3d 990, 996 (11th Cir. 2020)). The burden is on the plaintiff to
demonstrate these requirements for each claim. See JW ex rel. Williams v.
Birmingham Bd. of Educ., 904 F.3d 1248, 1264 (11th Cir. 2018) (per curiam).
Here, we look to the particularized-injury requirement. A particularized injury is
one that “affects the plaintiff in a personal and individual way.” Wood, 981 F.3d
at 1314 (quoting Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. __, 136 S. Ct. 1540, 1548
(2016)) (quotation marks omitted and alteration adopted). That means the plaintiff
any doubt” that Wood lacked Article III standing and that the appeal is moot. Wood, in turn, moved to strike Defendants’ motion to supplement the appellate record. Because we conclude Wood lacked standing without reference to any supplemental material, Defendants’ motion to supplement the appellate record and Wood’s motion to strike are DENIED AS MOOT.
4 USCA11 Case: 20-14813 Date Filed: 08/06/2021 Page: 5 of 8
must show more than a generalized grievance that is “undifferentiated and
common to all members of the public.” Id. at 1314 (quotation marks omitted).
In a recent case involving similar claims brought by Wood, our Court
applied this framework to hold that Wood lacked standing to bring his claims. In
that case, Wood alleged that Georgia’s absentee-ballot and recount procedures
used in the 2020 election violated his constitutional rights. Id. at 1310. He
therefore sought to “enjoin certification of the general election results, to secure a
new recount under different rules, and to establish new rules for an upcoming
runoff election.” Id. The Court noted that Wood’s alleged “injury to the right ‘to
require that the government be administered according to the law’” was an
insufficient generalized grievance. Id. at 1314 (quoting Chiles v. Thornburgh, 865
F.2d 1197, 1205–06 (11th Cir. 1989)). And although Wood argued that “the
inclusion of unlawfully processed absentee ballots diluted the weight of his vote”
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
USCA11 Case: 20-14813 Date Filed: 08/06/2021 Page: 1 of 8
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________
No. 20-14813 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:20-cv-05155-TCB
L. LIN WOOD,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
BRAD RAFFENSPERGER, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees. ________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia ________________________
(August 6, 2021)
Before MARTIN, JORDAN, and GRANT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
L. Lin Wood, Jr. appeals the district court’s dismissal of his lawsuit against
various Georgia state election officials. After careful consideration, we affirm the USCA11 Case: 20-14813 Date Filed: 08/06/2021 Page: 2 of 8
district court’s ruling because Wood is without Article III standing to make the
claims he asserts in this action.
I
The district court described this case as “the latest in a series of cases
associated with Wood that seek to challenge aspects of the 2020 election cycle.”
On December 18, 2020, Wood, then a registered Georgia voter, sued Brad
Raffensperger, Georgia’s Secretary of State, along with members of the Georgia
State Election Board in their official capacities (“Defendants”). Wood sought
declaratory relief and an injunction “halting” Georgia’s January 5, 2021, runoff
election because he alleged the election was proceeding in a manner contrary to
Georgia’s election laws and the U.S. Constitution.
Wood alleged that Defendants authorized four unlawful procedures for use
in the election: (1) the signature verification process for absentee ballots, (2) the
processing of absentee ballots prior to election day, (3) the use of drop boxes for
absentee ballots, and (4) the use of Dominion Voting Systems Corporation’s voting
machines. Based on these allegations, Wood brought three claims. First, he
alleged the procedures violated his equal protection and voting rights, as he said he
planned to vote in person in the election, and these procedures would dilute his
vote and cause his vote to be treated differently. Second, Wood alleged the
procedures violated his due process rights because the procedures were “defective
2 USCA11 Case: 20-14813 Date Filed: 08/06/2021 Page: 3 of 8
and unlawful” and affected the “integrity of the election.” Last, he alleged the
procedures violated the Guarantee Clause of the Constitution, which says the
United States “shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of
Government.” U.S. Const. Art. IV, § 4. In Wood’s view, the procedures he
identified violated the Guarantee Clause because they did “not provide for the
certainty of a free and fair election.”
The district court dismissed Wood’s lawsuit for lack of jurisdiction, as the
court found Wood did not have Article III standing to sue. With regard to the
equal protection and due process claims, the district court found that Wood failed
to demonstrate a particularized injury. The court noted other deficiencies for these
claims as well. The district court then found that Wood lacked standing to bring
his Guarantee Clause claim because the Guarantee Clause makes a guarantee of
republican government only to the states and thus does not confer any rights on
individuals. This is Wood’s appeal.1
1 Two issues arose while this appeal was pending. First, this Court directed the parties to address whether this appeal is moot, and thus whether we lack jurisdiction, “given that the January 5, 2021, election with respect to which Wood seeks relief has already occurred.” In response, Wood says the appeal is not moot because the controversy is capable of repetition yet evading review and because he seeks nominal damages. Defendants argue that the appeal is moot because the election has “come and gone” and none of the exceptions to the mootness doctrine applies. Because we hold Wood lacked Article III standing to sue, we need not reach the question of whether the appeal is moot. See Sinochem Int’l Co. v. Malay. Int’l Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422, 431, 127 S. Ct. 1184, 1191 (2007) (“[T]here is no mandatory ‘sequencing of jurisdictional issues.’”).
Second, Defendants moved for leave to supplement the appellate record with material showing Wood did not actually vote in the election, which Defendants say “establishes beyond
3 USCA11 Case: 20-14813 Date Filed: 08/06/2021 Page: 4 of 8
II
On appeal, Wood says the district court erred in dismissing his lawsuit for
lack of Article III standing. We review de novo whether a plaintiff has Article III
standing. See Wood v. Raffensperger, 981 F.3d 1307, 1313–16 (11th Cir. 2020).
To show he has standing, a plaintiff must demonstrate he suffered an injury in fact
that is fairly traceable to the defendant’s actions and likely to be redressed by a
favorable decision. Id. at 1314 (citing Jacobson v. Fla. Sec’y of State, 974 F.3d
1236, 1245 (11th Cir. 2020)). An injury in fact is one that is concrete,
particularized, and either actual or imminent. Id. (citing Trichell v. Midland Credit
Mgmt., Inc., 964 F.3d 990, 996 (11th Cir. 2020)). The burden is on the plaintiff to
demonstrate these requirements for each claim. See JW ex rel. Williams v.
Birmingham Bd. of Educ., 904 F.3d 1248, 1264 (11th Cir. 2018) (per curiam).
Here, we look to the particularized-injury requirement. A particularized injury is
one that “affects the plaintiff in a personal and individual way.” Wood, 981 F.3d
at 1314 (quoting Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. __, 136 S. Ct. 1540, 1548
(2016)) (quotation marks omitted and alteration adopted). That means the plaintiff
any doubt” that Wood lacked Article III standing and that the appeal is moot. Wood, in turn, moved to strike Defendants’ motion to supplement the appellate record. Because we conclude Wood lacked standing without reference to any supplemental material, Defendants’ motion to supplement the appellate record and Wood’s motion to strike are DENIED AS MOOT.
4 USCA11 Case: 20-14813 Date Filed: 08/06/2021 Page: 5 of 8
must show more than a generalized grievance that is “undifferentiated and
common to all members of the public.” Id. at 1314 (quotation marks omitted).
In a recent case involving similar claims brought by Wood, our Court
applied this framework to hold that Wood lacked standing to bring his claims. In
that case, Wood alleged that Georgia’s absentee-ballot and recount procedures
used in the 2020 election violated his constitutional rights. Id. at 1310. He
therefore sought to “enjoin certification of the general election results, to secure a
new recount under different rules, and to establish new rules for an upcoming
runoff election.” Id. The Court noted that Wood’s alleged “injury to the right ‘to
require that the government be administered according to the law’” was an
insufficient generalized grievance. Id. at 1314 (quoting Chiles v. Thornburgh, 865
F.2d 1197, 1205–06 (11th Cir. 1989)). And although Wood argued that “the
inclusion of unlawfully processed absentee ballots diluted the weight of his vote”
and that Georgia “valued” and “favored” in-person votes less than absentee votes,
the Court held that neither injury was particularized and thus could not support
standing. Id. at 1314–15 (alteration adopted). While the Court recognized vote
dilution can be a particularized injury, Wood’s claim of vote dilution was an
insufficient generalized grievance because any vote dilution had a proportional
effect on every vote and thus “no single voter [was] specifically disadvantaged.”
Id. at 1314–15 (quotation marks omitted). And Wood’s assertion that Georgia
5 USCA11 Case: 20-14813 Date Filed: 08/06/2021 Page: 6 of 8
“valued” and “favored” in-person votes less than absentee votes was also only a
generalized grievance because any harm did “not affect Wood as an individual—it
[was] instead shared identically by the four million or so Georgians who voted in
person this November.” Id. at 1315 (alteration adopted).
Here, just like in his recent case, Wood lacked Article III standing to bring
each of his three claims. Beginning with his equal protection claim, Wood argues
he had standing because the challenged procedures diluted in-person votes and
valued in-person votes less than absentee votes. However, Wood does not explain
how his particular in-person vote, as opposed to all in-person votes more generally,
was diluted or disvalued. With respect to his argument that the procedures diluted
in-person votes, Wood fails to show the procedures “specifically disadvantaged”
his vote rather than impacting the proportional effect of every vote. Id. at 1314–15
(quotation marks omitted). As for his argument that the procedures valued in-
person votes less than absentee votes, Wood fails to show that harm “affect[ed]
Wood as an individual.” Id. at 1315. At most, Wood’s asserted injuries were
“shared identically by [all] Georgians who voted in person.” Id. Wood therefore
has shown nothing more than a textbook generalized grievance that is insufficient
for Article III standing. See id. at 1314–15. And to the extent Wood argues in
passing that he had standing because he believes the procedures were “unlawful,”
“illegal,” and “unconstitutional,” the injury to his right that the government be
6 USCA11 Case: 20-14813 Date Filed: 08/06/2021 Page: 7 of 8
administered according to the law is likewise an insufficient generalized grievance.
See id. at 1314; see also, e.g., Lance v. Coffman, 549 U.S. 437, 439–42, 127 S. Ct.
1194, 1196–98 (2007) (per curiam) (collecting cases) (stating an allegation “that
the law . . . has not been followed” is “precisely the kind of undifferentiated,
generalized grievance” that is insufficient to support standing).
Turning to Wood’s due process and Guarantee Clause claims, we note that
he has failed to raise any arguments in support of his standing to bring those
claims. Rather, all of his arguments in support of standing address his equal
protection claim. Under our precedent, he has therefore abandoned his due process
and Guarantee Clause claims on appeal. See Wilding v. DNC Servs. Corp., 941
F.3d 1116, 1124 n.1 (11th Cir. 2019) (holding that plaintiffs abandoned a claim
when they failed to challenge the district court’s dismissal of the claim for lack of
Article III standing).
But even if his claims were not abandoned, Wood lacked standing to bring
them. For his due process claim, Wood alleged the procedures violated his due
process rights because the procedures were “defective and unlawful” and affected
the “integrity of the election.” However, this grievance is common to all members
of the public, so it is not particularized and thus not enough for Article III standing.
See Wood, 981 F.3d at 1314; see also Dillard v. Chilton Cnty. Comm’n, 495 F.3d
1324, 1333 (11th Cir. 2007) (per curiam) (noting that “an asserted interest in being
7 USCA11 Case: 20-14813 Date Filed: 08/06/2021 Page: 8 of 8
free of an allegedly illegal electoral system” is not a particularized injury).
Wood’s Guarantee Clause claim fails for the same reason. He alleged the
procedures violated the Guarantee Clause because they did “not provide for the
certainty of a free and fair election.” This grievance is also common to all
members of the public and therefore insufficient for Article III standing.
See Wood, 981 F.3d at 1314; see also Democratic Party of Wis. v. Vos, 966 F.3d
581, 589 (7th Cir. 2020) (observing that “the Guarantee Clause makes the
guarantee of a republican form of government to the states; the bare language of
the Clause does not directly confer any rights on individuals [vis-à-vis] the states”
(quoting Largess v. Supreme Jud. Ct. for the State of Mass., 373 F.3d 219, 224 n.5
(1st Cir. 2004) (per curiam) (quotation marks omitted)).
AFFIRMED.