Rohr v. State of Utah

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
• Decided: February 27, 2026
• Docket: 25-4073
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Appellate Case: 25-4073 Document: 37-1 Date Filed: 02/27/2026 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT February 27, 2026 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court GIAN MARTINEZ-FERRATE; ANDRE MARTINEZ-FERRATE; MARILYN WESTENSKOW,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

and

ANGELA ROHR; LOUIS ROHR,

Plaintiffs,

v. No. 25-4073 (D.C. No. 2:24-CV-00659-AMA) STATE OF UTAH; OFFICE OF THE (D. Utah) LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR; DEIDRE M. HENDERSON; SHELLY JACKSON; RYAN COWLEY,

Defendants - Appellees. _________________________________

ORDER AND JUDGMENT * _________________________________

Before BACHARACH, KELLY, and FEDERICO, Circuit Judges. ** _________________________________

* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. ** The court initially set this matter on the oral argument calendar to be submitted on the briefs. After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Appellate Case: 25-4073 Document: 37-1 Date Filed: 02/27/2026 Page: 2

Plaintiffs-Appellants Gian Martinez-Ferrate, Andre Martinez-Ferrate, and

Marilyn (or Marylin) Westenskow were proposed presidential electors in Utah. 1

They appeal from the dismissal of their complaint against Defendants-Appellees —

the State of Utah, the Office of the Lieutenant Governor, Lieutenant Governor Deidre

M. Henderson, Deputy Director of Elections Shelly Jackson, and Director of

Elections Ryan Cowley — for lack of standing. We have jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm.

Background

In advance of the 2024 presidential election, Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai (“Dr.

Shiva”) submitted a declaration of candidacy 2 to be placed on Utah’s ballot for

President of the United States as an unaffiliated candidate. R. 84. Pursuant to Utah

law, which requires unaffiliated candidates to name their presidential electors, Utah

Code Ann. § 20A-13-301(1)(c) (LexisNexis 2025), Dr. Shiva named Plaintiffs and

others as his electors, R. 51–52. To be added to the presidential ballot in Utah,

candidates must attest that they meet the qualifications to be President, including that

they are natural born citizens. U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 5; Utah Code Ann. §§ 20A-

1 After filing this appeal, two of the original appellants, Angela Rohr and Louis Rohr, moved to withdraw as Plaintiffs-Appellants. App. Ct. Dkt. No. 28. The motion was granted and the other three Plaintiffs continue with this appeal. App. Ct. Dkt. No. 31. 2 Defendants note that the correct term for this filing is a “certificate of nomination” and not a “declaration of candidacy” but that they are “functionally equivalent.” Aplee. Br. at 6 n.4. The district court used the latter term, so we do the same. R. 177. 2 Appellate Case: 25-4073 Document: 37-1 Date Filed: 02/27/2026 Page: 3

9-201(1)(b), -502(1)(a). On his filing form, Dr. Shiva stated that he was a U.S.

citizen but was born in India. R. 103.

In July 2024, Utah’s lieutenant governor, the state’s chief elections official, id.

at 83, disqualified Dr. Shiva from the ballot because he was not a natural born citizen

and could not run for President, id. at 110. Crystal Ellis, Dr. Shiva’s running mate,

then filed her candidacy for Vice President; the lieutenant governor rejected her

filing because of Dr. Shiva’s disqualification. Id. at 105–06, 108.

In September 2024, proceeding under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiffs filed their

complaint for “unlawfully remov[ing]” them as electors from Utah’s 2024 general

election ballot. Id. at 8–42. They also moved to preliminarily enjoin Defendants

from removing them as electors, raising similar claims. Id. at 49–60. Neither Dr.

Shiva nor Ms. Ellis were parties to the suit or sought to intervene below.

In October 2024, the district court denied the motion for injunctive relief for

lack of standing, finding that Plaintiffs failed to meet the injury in fact and

redressability requirements. Id. at 117–23. The district court then issued a show

cause order as to standing; after additional briefing, the district court dismissed the

complaint for similar reasons. Id. at 131, 176–82.

After filing their appeal, Plaintiffs filed a motion to add Dr. Shiva and Ms.

Ellis as appellants, to which Defendants responded. App. Ct. Dkt. No. 12; App. Ct.

Dkt. No. 18. That motion is also before us.

3 Appellate Case: 25-4073 Document: 37-1 Date Filed: 02/27/2026 Page: 4

Discussion

We give pro se pleadings a mandated liberal construction. Garrett v. Selby

Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005). But while we may

“make some allowances for the pro se plaintiff’s failure to cite proper legal

authority,” we will not excuse a failure to follow rules of procedure or act as the

party’s advocate. Id. (citation modified); Yang v. Archuleta, 525 F.3d 925, 927 n.1

(10th Cir. 2008).

We begin with the motion to add Dr. Shiva and Ms. Ellis as parties. No legal

authority to support their motion is cited, which is required under the Federal Rules

of Appellate Procedure. Fed. R. App. P. 27(a)(2)(A). Because Plaintiffs-Appellants

have failed to comply with our procedural rules, we deny their motion. See Garrett,

425 F.3d at 840–41.

We turn now to the issue of standing. Article III limits the power of the

federal courts to resolve only “Cases” and “Controversies.” U.S. Const. art. III, § 2,

cl. 1. “For there to be a case or controversy under Article III, the plaintiff must have

. . . standing.” TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U.S. 413, 423 (2021). To establish

standing, a plaintiff bears the burden of showing (1) an injury in fact, (2) that the

injury was likely caused by the defendant, and (3) that the injury would likely be

redressed by judicial relief. Food & Drug Admin. v. All. for Hippocratic Med., 602

U.S. 367, 380 (2024). At the pleading stage, “the plaintiff must clearly allege facts

demonstrating each element” of standing. Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330, 338

(2016) (citation modified).

4 Appellate Case: 25-4073 Document: 37-1 Date Filed: 02/27/2026 Page: 5

To establish an injury in fact, the plaintiff “must show that he or she suffered

an invasion of a legally protected interest that is concrete and particularized and

actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.” Id. at 339 (citation modified).

“The injury must affect the plaintiff in a personal and individual way and not be a

generalized grievance.” All. for Hippocratic Med., 602 U.S. at 381 (citation

modified).

In their complaint, Plaintiffs argued that Defendants lacked authority to (1)

remove Dr. Shiva and Ms. Ellis from the ballot because Utah voters cast votes for

presidential electors rather than candidates, (2) remove Plaintiffs (the potential

electors) from the ballot because Defendants did not notify them of the rejection of

Dr. Shiva’s or Ms. Ellis’s candidacy, and (3) remove Plaintiffs from the ballot

because they had no grounds to do so. R. 27–40. Underlying each of these

arguments is the claim that electors, rather than candidates, are on the ballot. But

that claim is inaccurate.

The Constitution delegates the process of selecting presidential electors to the

states. U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 2. Accordingly, states have “far-reaching

authority” over the appointment of electors. Chiafalo v. Washington, 591 U.S. 578,

588–89 (2020).

As stated above, Utah requires unaffiliated candidates to name their proposed

presidential electors. Utah Code Ann. § 20A-13-301(1)(c) (LexisNexis 2025). Those

electors then cast votes for President and Vice President of the United States. Id.

§ 20A-13-304; U.S. Const. amend. XII. Utah specifically excludes presidential

5 Appellate Case: 25-4073 Document: 37-1 Date Filed: 02/27/2026 Page: 6

electors from its definition of “[c]andidates for elective office[.]” Utah Code Ann.

§ 20A-9-101(1)(a), (b)(ii). Thus, as the district court recognized, “a logical

forerunner to the appointing of a presidential elector . . . is [a] . . . candidate for the

office of president of the United States.” R. 122. Dr. Shiva and Ms. Ellis were never

candidates or on the ballot because the Lieutenant Governor rejected their

declarations of candidacy. Id. at 108, 110.

Thus, Plaintiffs were not on the presidential ballot and had no right to be

presidential electors. Moreover, neither Dr. Shiva nor Ms. Ellis are parties to the

instant suit, and Plaintiffs have not shown that they have third-party standing to

assert Dr. Shiva’s or Ms. Ellis’s rights. See Hill v. Warsewa, 947 F.3d 1305, 1309–

10 (10th Cir. 2020). And to the extent that Plaintiffs allege that they were entitled to

notice of Dr. Shiva’s or Ms. Ellis’s disqualifications, Utah law only requires

notification to putative candidates — here, Dr. Shiva and Ms. Ellis. Utah Code Ann.

§ 20A-9-202(5)(a)–(c).

Plaintiffs have not clearly alleged facts sufficient to establish an injury in fact.

Spokeo, 578 U.S. at 338. Therefore, they have no standing and our analysis need go

no further. See Lupia v. Medicredit, Inc., 8 F.4th 1184, 1190 (10th Cir. 2021);

Carpenter v. Vilsack, No. 22-8079, 2023 WL 6810960, at *8 n.13 (10th Cir. Oct. 16,

2023).

6 Appellate Case: 25-4073 Document: 37-1 Date Filed: 02/27/2026 Page: 7

Accordingly, the district court’s dismissal of the complaint is AFFIRMED.

Entered for the Court

Per Curiam