Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

TRINSEY v. MITCHELL

March 17, 1994

JACK TRINSEY
v.
BRENDA K. MITCHELL, et al.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: BY THE COURT; EDWARD N. CAHN

 CAHN, C.J.

 This case involves the constitutionality of Pennsylvania's ballot access laws for senatorial and gubernatorial candidates of major political parties, as well as peripheral challenges to other aspects of the election scheme. plaintiff Jack Trinsey ("Trinsey"), appearing pro se,1 challenges the constitutionality of certain signature requirements of the Pennsylvania Election Code ("Election Code"). Additionally, Trinsey asks this court for an order rescheduling Pennsylvania's primary election for a later date, and for a monetary judgment against the Republican State Committee of Pennsylvania ("RSC"). Jurisdiction in this matter exists pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

 Before the court is a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint. For the reasons discussed below, the court will grant defendants' motion to dismiss.

 I. Legal Standard

 The purpose of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion is to test the legal sufficiency of a complaint. Sturm v. Clark, 835 F.2d 1009, 1011 (3d Cir. 1987). A complaint may not be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted unless "it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which could entitle him to relief." Perry v. Grant, 775 F. Supp. 821, 824 (M.D. Pa. 1991) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 2 L. Ed. 2d 80, 78 S. Ct. 99 (1957)). In deciding a motion to dismiss pursuant to 12(b)(6), the court must "accept as true all the allegations in the complaint and all reasonable inferences that can be drawn therefrom, and view them in the light most favorable to the non-moving party." Rocks v. Philadelphia, 868 F.2d 644, 645 (3d Cir. 1989). Dismissal is not appropriate unless it clearly appears that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief. Robb v. Philadelphia, 733 F.2d 286, 290 (3d Cir. 1984).

 II. Background

 On February 14, 1994, Trinsey, a self-described "rank and file member of the Republican Party" (Compl. at 3, P 7a), who is "relentlessly litigating for more fair and equitable voter rights not only in this Honorable Court but in every State in the Union" (Compl. at 3, P 7b), filed a three-count complaint seeking the following relief:

 
(1) a declaratory judgment that sections of the Election Code, which require that persons seeking the nomination of a major political party file a nomination petition bearing a requisite number of signatures in an allotted time frame, pose an unconstitutional burden on candidates. See 25 P.S. §§ 2868, 2872.1 and 2873.
 
(2) an order rescheduling the primary election.
 
(3) a monetary judgment against the Republican State Committee of Pennsylvania "in an amount equal to [Trinsey's] fair share of 1994 Republican Primary Campaign Funds." (Compl. at 8, P 15).

 Each argument will be dealt with seriatim.2

 III. Discussion

 A. Constitutionality of Election Code ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.