The opinion of the court was delivered by: (Judge Rambo)
Before the court is James R. Germalic's petition for an injunction to stop the printing of ballots for the general election to be held on November 6, 2012. Because this court considers this request to be a request for emergency relief, the motion will be addressed without notice to the defendant and without a hearing. No complaint has been filed in this action.*fn1
Germalic claims that Pennsylvania is a large state and that he does not have the ability to gather the number of signatures required in time to have his name placed on the ballot. He claims that he cannot compete on a level playing field with the other candidates and, therefore, he is not being treated equally. It appears that his claim is a denial of equal protection.
A request for injunctive relief requires that the following four factors be considered:
(1) whether the movant has shown a reasonable probability of success on the merits; (2) whether the movant will be irreparably injured by denial of the requested relief; (3) whether the granting of preliminary relief will result in even greater harm to the nonmoving party; and (4) whether granting preliminary relief will be in the public interest.
American Express Travel Related Services, Inc. v. Sidamon-Eristoff, et al., 669 F.3d 359, 366 (3d Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). This court will analyze the instant request against these standards.
A. Reasonable Probability of Success on the Merits
It appears that Germalic is alleging a denial of equal protection. The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment directs that all similarly situated individuals be treated alike. City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432, 439 (1985).
Two theories exist upon which a plaintiff may predicate an equal protection claim: the traditional theory and the class of one theory. The traditional theory protects individuals from discriminatory treatment based upon membership in a protected class such as race, national origin, religion or sex. . . . Under the class-of-one theory, a plaintiff may advance an equal protection claim absent membership in a protected class if he or she shows irrational and intentional differential treatment when compared with similarly situated individuals.
Hynoski v. Columbia County Redevelopment Auth., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24794, *8 (M.D. Pa. 2011) (citations omitted).
Germalic does not qualify for consideration under the traditional theory because he is not a member of a protected class. Nor does Germalic qualify for protection under the class-of-one theory. He has not been treated differently than any other candidate running for office. All candidates are required to meet the minimum number of signatures to ...