Hewes v. Alabama Secretary of State

Background

Henry F. Hewes brought the case without a lawyer against 44 state officials and agencies. He sought court orders declaring that he had the right to appear as a candidate on the Democratic Party primary ballot in each defendant’s state. He alleged that ballot-access requirements violated rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

The complaint alleged that Hewes registered his candidacy for the Democratic nomination for President with the Federal Election Commission, requested placement on the relevant state ballots, and planned to campaign in all 50 states either personally or digitally. The opinion describes the factual allegations about his own ballot-access efforts as sparse.

A group of defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), 12(b)(2), and 12(b)(6), which address subject-matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction, and failure to state a legally sufficient claim. Hewes filed no opposition brief. The Maine State Department later joined the motion.

Claims Against the Moving Defendants

The court dismissed the claims against the out-of-state Moving Defendants for lack of personal jurisdiction, meaning the court lacked sufficient legal authority over those defendants. Because the case involved a federal question, the court first examined whether New York’s long-arm statute authorized jurisdiction and then would have considered constitutional due process. It stopped after finding no basis under New York law.

The amended complaint made only the conclusory statement that the out-of-state state officials were subject to jurisdiction because their actions would infringe Hewes’s civil rights. It did not allege that they conducted business in New York, committed a tort there, owned property there, or engaged in other conduct supporting jurisdiction. The court therefore dismissed those claims without prejudice.

The court separately dismissed the claim against the New York Department of State without prejudice for inadequate service of process. The record showed that the original complaint had been mailed, but did not show service in the manner required for a New York state agency. There was also no proof of proper service of the amended complaint and no indication that the New York Office of the Attorney General had received the required documents.

Claims Against the Non-Moving Defendants

The remaining defendants had not joined the motion and had not appeared or answered. The court stated that the same personal-jurisdiction problems appeared to apply to them, but it did not dismiss their claims at that point. Instead, the court ordered Hewes to show cause within 60 days why the claims against those defendants should not be dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Disposition

The court ordered that the claims against the Moving Defendants be dismissed without prejudice. It ordered Hewes to respond within 60 days concerning the claims against the Non-Moving Defendants and directed the Clerk of Court to close the motion at Docket No. 54. The opinion did not decide whether Hewes’s ballot-access theories were constitutionally valid.