Chong Yi v. Democratic National Committee, No. 16-1711 (4th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1711 CHONG SU YI, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. DEMOCRATIC COMMITTEE, NATIONAL COMMITTEE; REPUBLICAN NATIONAL Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, Senior District Judge. (8:16-cv-01172-RWT) Submitted: November 7, 2016 Before KEENAN Circuit Judge. and FLOYD, Decided: Circuit Judges, December 9, 2016 and DAVIS, Senior Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion. Chong Su Yi, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Chong Su his dismissing (2012). Yi civil On appeals appeal, unconstitutionally from complaint Yi broad the under contends and district 28 first vague and U.S.C. that that rights to due process and access to courts. that his complaint stated a claim on court’s order § 1915(e)(2) § 1915(e)(2) it violates is his He further asserts which relief may be granted. The Supreme Court has long recognized the established principle that a patently frivolous complaint may be dismissed for want of subject matter jurisdiction. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 n.6 (1989); see also Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 307-08 (1989) (“Section 1915[(e)] . . . authorizes courts to dismiss a ‘frivolous or malicious’ action, but there is little doubt they would have the power to do so even in the absence of this statutory provision.”). Regarding the district court’s authority under the statute to sua sponte dismiss in forma pauperis complaints that fail to state a claim, Yi has not specified what process he was due, but denied. Because dismissals under § 1915(e)(2)(B) should be without prejudice, Nagy v. FMC Butner, 376 F.3d 252, 258 (4th Cir. 2004), Yi is free to refile an amended complaint, and thus, the dismissal of his complaint has not barred his right to seek relief under a valid cause of action. 2 See White v. White, 886 F.2d 721, 724 (4th Cir. 1989) (dismissal without prejudice permits plaintiff “to cure any deficiencies in his pleading”). In addition, while Yi claims the statute’s standards are vague and too broad, the standards for stating a claim and for finding frivolousness, understood. discussed below, are longstanding and well Yi’s claim that § 1915(e) is unconstitutional thus is without merit. However, because the district court did not specify whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice, we modify the dismissal order to show that the dismissal was we for without prejudice. Turning to the merits of Yi’s complaint, review abuse of discretion a district court’s dismissal of a complaint as frivolous This court failure to under § 1915(e)(2)(B). reviews state de novo a claim a Nagy, district under 376 court’s § 1915, F.3d at 254. dismissal applying the for same standards as those for reviewing a Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) dismissal. 2013). See De’Lonta v. Johnson, 708 F.3d 520, 524 (4th Cir. The complaint must contain sufficient factual allegations to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. De’Lonta, 708 F.3d at 524 (citations and quotation marks omitted). A federal court is required to dismiss an in forma pauperis case at any time the court determines the action is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim 3 on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. action as 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). frivolous is appropriate arguable basis in law or fact. when the Dismissal of an action lacks an Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325. The district court accurately noted that Yi’s complaint was difficult to decipher. Yi appears to allege that his right to vote in the Maryland primary elections was improperly denied based on his status as a registered independent. However, he also mentions the Fifteenth Amendment and his status as a person of color, * although he does not claim that persons of certain races are more likely to register as independents. Affording alleged that Yi his liberal construction, constitutional rights we conclude were, or that will Yi be, violated when he is barred from voting in the primary elections in Maryland Democratic due to National his failure Committee or * to align the with either Republican the National The Fifteenth Amendment as applied through The Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA) provides the basis for a claim of voter disenfranchisement. The Fifteenth Amendment prohibits the states from denying or abridging the right to vote based upon race, color or previous condition of servitude. The VRA, as amended in 1982, was originally enacted to work in tandem with the Fifteenth Amendment to “rid the country of racial discrimination in voting.” See South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301, 315 (1966) (abrogated on other grounds). The VRA prohibits any state practice that results in the “denial or abridgement of the right . . . to vote on account of race or color.” See 52 U.S.C. § 10301 (2012). 4 Committee. However, there a to candidate which [to be one “in does not California Democratic Party v. Jones, 530 U.S. 567, (“Selecting group right belong.” (2000) a constitutional the n.5 of no selecting 573 candidate is nominated] is quite different from voting for the candidate of one’s choice [who could take office].”). Accordingly, Yi’s bare allegations that, as an independent, he was excluded by the DNC and the RNC from voting in their primary elections fail to state a claim. Accordingly, we modify the district court’s order to show that the dismissal was without prejudice and affirm the order as modified. legal We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions before this court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED 5
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
