Fabricant v. Federal Election Commission ( 2020 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Danny Fabricant, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 20-765 (UNA)
)
Federal Election Commission et al., )
)
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter, brought pro se, is before the Court on review of the complaint and plaintiff’s
application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court will grant the in forma pauperis
application and dismiss the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A (requiring immediate
dismissal of a prisoner’s action upon a determination that the complaint fails to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted ).
A “complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to
relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl.
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). Plaintiff is a federal prisoner incarcerated at the
Federal Correctional Center in Lompoc, California. He purports to challenge the constitutionality
of 52 U.S.C. § 30101(2)(A)(B), defining “candidate” under the Federal Election Campaign Act
(“FECA”), but he has not alleged a constitutional defect. See Compl. at 1. Instead, plaintiff alleges
that defendant Federal Election Commission (“FEC”) relied on the challenged provision to
disqualify him as a 2020 U.S. House of Representatives Republican candidate for the 30th
Congressional District of California, see Compl. at 1-3, which alone does not raise a constitutional
question. In addition, plaintiff has sued California Secretary of State Alex Padilla for allegedly
1
failing to list his name on the “March 3, 2020 [California] Primary Election ballot” since “his name
was not on the list provided/transmitted by the FEC.” Compl. at 2. Plaintiff alleges that his name
will not appear “on the [California] November 3, 2020 general election ballot without an Order
from this Court.” Id. The controlling law provides:
The Commission, the national committee of any political party, or
any individual eligible to vote in any election for the office of
President may institute such actions in the appropriate district court
of the United States, including actions for declaratory judgment, as
may be appropriate to construe the constitutionality of any provision
of this Act. The district court immediately shall certify all questions
of constitutionality of this Act to the United States court of appeals
for the circuit involved, which shall hear the matter sitting en banc.
52 U.S.C. § 30110 (emphasis added). “Under § 30110, district courts do not certify frivolous [or
wholly insubstantial] constitutional questions to the en banc court of appeals.” Holmes v. F.E.C.,
823 F.3d 69, 71 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
Although plaintiff claims to be a “political candidate,” Compl. at 1, he also is an
incarcerated felon. See United States v. Fabricant, No. 03-cr-01257-RSWL-1, 2015 WL
12857301, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2015) (“Defendant Danny Joseph Fabricant . . . is currently
serving a life sentence after a jury convicted him of five counts of conspiracy to distribute,
distribution of, and possession with the intent to distribute methamphetamine[.]”) And “California
prohibits felons in prison or on parole from voting.” Legal Servs. for Prisoners with Children v.
Bowen, 170 Cal. App. 4th 447, 452, 87 Cal. Rptr. 3d 869, 871 (2009), quoting Cal. Const., art. II,
§ 4; Cal. Elections Code section 2101. So, plaintiff can obtain no relief under FECA. A separate
order of dismissal accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
_________s/_____________
AMY BERMAN JACKSON
Date: April 21, 2020 United States District Judge
2