Supreme Court of the United States
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Supreme Court, U.S. FILED NOV 20 2018 OFFICE OF THE CLERK No. 18- 7i In The SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES GEOFFREY M. YOUNG, Petitioner vs. SANNIE OVERLY, CLINT MORRIS, ANDY BE SHEAR, ALISON LUNDERGAN GRIMES, JACK CONWAY, THE STATE CENTRAL EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE KENTUCKY DEMOCRATIC PARTY, AND THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE FAYETTE COUNTY DEMOCRATIC PARTY, Respondents On Petition For Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The Sixth Circuit PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI Geoffrey M. Young, pro se 454 Kimberly Place Lexington, KY 40503 (859) 2784966 RECEIVED DEC 42018 OFF1C O.F THE CLERK SUPREME COURT, U.S. QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW If the decision in Rosenberg v. Republican Party of Jefferson County, 270 S.W2d 171 (Ky. 1954) is not overturned, will the Republican and Democratic Parties in Kentucky forevermore be allowed by the courts to commit election fraud in their own primary elections? If Democratic and Republican Party organizations in the Sixth District violate KRS 118.105 (1) and their most important bylaws, should they be immune from all lawsuits that could cause their violative practices to be reviewed and possibly overturned by the courts? Do the Kentucky Attorney General and Secretary of State have permanent, absolute immunity from civil liability no matter what they do or fail to do? In civil rights cases where the plaintiff alleges that a conspiracy violated one or more criminal statutes in addition to the plaintiffs constitutional rights, should this Court's decision in Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 619 (1973) overrule the plain language of 42 U.S.C. § 1983? May a district court dismiss a complaint before discovery, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim, without fairly analyzing and discussing the specific factual allegations the plaintiff committed to writing in his or her complaint? 11 6) May a district court refuse to allow a plaintiff to file a second amended complaint when said refusal would violate Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15? LIST OF PARTIES GEOFFREY M. YOUNG, Plaintiff and Petitioner SANNIE OVERLY, Defendant CLINT MORRIS, Defendant ANDY BESHEAR, Attorney General of Kentucky, Defendant ALISON LUNDERGAN GRIMES, Kentucky Secretary of State, Defendant JACK CONWAY, Defendant THE STATE CENTRAL EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE KENTUCKY DEMOCRATIC PARTY Defendant; and THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE FAYETTE COUNTY DEMOCRATIC PARTY Defendant. UI TABLE OF CONTENTS QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW ......i-u LIST OF PARTIES ............................ii TABLE OF CONTENTS .......................iii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .....................v OPINIONS BELOW ............................1 JURISDICTION ...............................1 CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS, STATUTES AND POLICIES AT ISSUE ......................4 STATEMENT OF THE CASE ....................7 Facts Giving Rise To This Case ............7 The District Court Proceedings ...........9 The Appellate Court Proceedings .........21 REASONS WHY CERTIORARI SHOULD BE GRANTED ................................26 1. Review is Warranted Because The Opinion By The Sixth Circuit Conflicts With A Long Line Of Cases That Define A Well-Pleaded Civil Complaint ................................ 26 iv Review is Warranted Because The District And Circuit Courts Decisions Would Allow The Democratic And Republican Parties To Violate Their Own Bylaws And State Election Laws At Will.....................................28 Review is Warranted Because If The Democratic And Republican Parties Are Widely Seen As Corrupt, Fewer People Will See Any Reason To Vote In Primaries.........................29 CONCLUSION ................................31 V TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Ashcroft v. Igbal, 556 U.S. 662, 663, 677-687 (2009) ......................................25, 27 Bell Ati. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554-570 (2007) ......................................25, 27 Cent. Bank of Denver, N.A. v. First Interstate Bank of Denver, N.A., 511 U.S. 164, 190 (1994) ..........22 Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 815 (1982) .......24 Johnson v. City of Shelby, 135 S. Ct. 346 (2014) ..................................16, 22, 25, 26 Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614 , 619 (1973) . .. 19 Monell v. Department of Soc. Svcs., 436 U.S. 658, 663-66 (1978) ...................................19 Rosenberg v. Republican Party of Jefferson County, 270 S.W2d 171 (Ky. 1954) ............19, 20, 31 Soto v. Brooklyn Correctional Facility, 80 F.3d 34-37 (2d Cir. 1996) ..............................15 Carol Wilding, et al. v. DNC Service Corp.,et al., Case No. 17194 in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.......................................30 Wood v. Strickland, 420 U.S. 308,322 (1975) ........24 1 OPINIONS BELOW On August 27, 2018, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioner's petition for rehearing and rehearing en bane in Civil Action No. 17-6242. The text is reprinted in the Appendix hereto, p. la. On July 2, 2018, a three-judge panel of the Sixth Circuit filed an order upholding the District Court's memorandum opinion and order. The panel's order, which was not recommended for full-text publication, was published by wwwpacer.gov and is reprinted in the Appendix hereto, pp. 2a-11a. The memorandum opinion and order in Case No. 3:16-cv-00062-GFVT, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, Central Division, was filed on September 29, 2017. It denied the Respondents' three original motions to dismiss as moot, granted the Petitioner's motion to replace Complaint version 1 (R. 1) with version 2 (R. 19), granted the Respondents' three motions to dismiss Complaint version 2, denied the Petitioner's motions for sanctions, and dismissed the Petitioner's entire civil action with prejudice. See App., pp. 12a-25a. This Order was published by Casemine.com at the following web address: https://wwwcasemine.com/ judgement/us/59df61c1add7b042cdefbc9a JURISDICTION On August 19, 2016, the Petitioner brought suit against Respondents in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, alleging that the Respon- ;ti dents and other powerful Kentucky Democrats had entered into a conspiracy that violated his freedom of speech on March 13, 2014 by threatening to have him arrested for "trespassing" for exercising his freedom of speech in a non-disruptive manner at a previous meeting of the Fayette County Democratic Party ("FCDP"). See R. 1, page 17. Petitioner also alleged that the conspiracy rigged and stole the 2015 Democratic primary for Governor of Kentucky from him by violating the party's bylaws and state election laws. See R. 1, pp. 1-5, 23-26, 32-35, and 40-43. He also alleged that the conspiracy violated his due process rights every time he tried to appeal their actions. See R. 1, pp. 14-16. He also alleged that the Kentucky Young Democrats violated his freedom of speech by threatening to have him arrested for "trespassing" on April 30, 2016 if he didn't put away his antiwar sign. See R. 1, p. 16. The Respondents filed three motions to dismiss. Petitioner filed three responses and then an amended complaint (version 2, R. 19) on October 28, 2016. On November 18, 2016, Petitioner filed a motion to replace version 1, R. 1, by the amended complaint, R. 19. Respondents filed three motions to dismiss the amended complaint, and Petitioner filed three responses. The Petitioner filed three motions for sanctions against the Respondents and their counsel. See R. 28, R. 34 and R. 35. On September 14, 2017, Petitioner filed a motion (R. 41) to amend and supplement his amended complaint to include alleged violations by the conspiracy that had 91 occurred after October 28, 2016. Petitioner tendered Complaint version 3, R. 41, Exhibit #7. On September 27, 2017, Petitioner filed a motion, including five evidence exhibits, (R. 42) for an emergency temporary injunction to freeze the assets of two Respondents, the Kentucky Democratic Party ("KDP") and the FCDP, until the final adjudication of the case. On September 29, 2017, the Honorable District Court Judge Gregory F. VanTatenhove issued his first and only Order, wherein he granted Petitioner's motion (B. 20) to replace Complaint version 1 by version 2; and dismissed version 2, with prejudice, on the grounds that it failed to state any claim upon which relief could be granted. See App., pp. 24a-25a. On October 18, 2017, the Petitioner appealed the dismissal of his complaint to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. On July 2, 2018, a three-judge panel - the Honorable Alice M. Batchelder, the Honorable Richard A. Griffin, and the Honorable Joan L. Larson - affirmed the district court's judgment and wrote that the decision was not for publication. See App., pp. 2a and ha. On July 16, 2018, Petitioner filed a petition for rehearing and a suggestion for rehearing en bane, which were denied by the Sixth Circuit on August 27, 2018. See App., p. ha. The jurisdiction of this Court to review the Judgment of the Sixth Circuit is invoked under 28 U.S.C. § 1254 (1). ri CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS, STATUTES AND POLICIES AT ISSUE First Amendment To The U.S. Constitution Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Fourteenth Amendment To The United States Constitution, Section 1 All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,