Oels et al v. Dunleavy et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
THOMAS W. OELS, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
MICHAEL J. DUNLEAVY, in his
official capacity as Governor, et al.
Defendants.
Case No. 3:23-cv-00006-SLG
ORDER RE ALL PENDING MOTIONS
This Court entered a Final Judgment in this action June 15, 2023 that
dismissed this action with prejudice.1 	Since that time, Plaintiffs have filed the
following motions:
 	At Docket 38, Motion to Reconsideration – Court Order Re All Pending
Motions.
 	At 	Docket 	40, 	Motion 	for 	Limited 	Discovery 	– 	State 	Regulation
Authorization, 	Schedule 	Stayed 	“Scheduling 	and 	Planning
Conference Report,” and Schedule Oral Argument on State Based
Administrative Complaint Procedures.
 	At Docket 42, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Extension of Time to Allow the
United States Attend the Interests of the United States in this Suit.
1 See Dockets 36, 37.
Case 3:23-cv-00006-SLG Document 47 Filed 08/17/23 Page 1 of 3

Case No. 3:23-cv-00006-SLG, Oels, et al. v. Dunleavy, et al.
Order Re All Pending Motions
Page 2 of 3
Defendants responded in opposition at Docket 44. Plaintiffs did not
file a reply.
 	At Docket 45, Motion for Notice of Non-Joinder by Defendant William
de Schweinitz.
The Court rules as follows on these motions:
In the motion to reconsider at Docket 38, Plaintiffs assert that the “Court
erred by overlooking federal requirements for state-based compliance complaints.”
But as the Court explained in its Order Re All Pending Motions that dismissed this
action, the Help America Vote Act does not create a private right of action in federal
court.2 	The 	correct 	forum 	for 	private 	individuals 	to 	challenge 	the 	State’s
compliance with HAVA is through an appeal to the Alaska Superior Court of the
State’s 	administrative 	determination.3 	Therefore, 	the 	motion 	to 	reconsider 	is
DENIED.
Plaintiffs’ motion for limited discovery and oral argument at Docket 40 is
denied because the Court declines to reopen this closed case. Likewise, Plaintiffs’
2 Docket 36 at 5, citing Sandusky Cnty Democratic Party v. Blackwell, 387 F. 3d 565, 572 (6 th
Cir. 2004). Plaintiffs’ citation to the recent decision by the United States Supreme Court in
Health & Hosp. Corp. v. Talevski, 599 U.S. ___ , 143 S.Ct. 1444, 1446 (2023), is inapposite.
The Court there held that the provisions of the statute at issue there, the Federal Nursing Home
Reform Act, “unambiguously confer individual federal rights enforceable under [42 U.S.C.] §
1983.” Here, the Court held that Plaintiffs lacked standing to bring a claim under the Elections
Clause of the United States Constitution, as the Court discussed in its dismissal order. See
Docket 36 at 8-9.
3 Plaintiffs maintain that the $250 filing fee to appeal to the Alaska Superior Court is a barrier to
their pursuing such relief. Docket 38 at 3. Of note, Plaintiffs instead elected to pay the federal
court’s $402 filing fee to initiate this action. And parties in each court may request waivers of
Case 3:23-cv-00006-SLG Document 47 Filed 08/17/23 Page 2 of 3

Case No. 3:23-cv-00006-SLG, Oels, et al. v. Dunleavy, et al.
Order Re All Pending Motions
Page 3 of 3
motion at Docket 42 seeking an extension of time “to allow the United States [to]
attend to its interests” is DENIED.4 	As Defendants correctly note, “[i]f the United
States has any concerns about Alaska’s compliance with the Help America Vote
Act, the Attorney General can file a separate lawsuit.” 5
The Motion for Notice of Non-Joinder filed by Plaintiff de Schweinitz at
Docket 45 id DENIED as moot.
Should Plaintiffs seek further relief from the federal courts, they may file a
Notice of Appeal with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
DATED this 17th day of August 2023, at Anchorage, Alaska.
/s/ Sharon L. Gleason
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
filing fees if they present a financial hardship.
4 Docket 42 at 1.
5 Docket 44, n.13, citing 52 U.S.C. § 21111.
Case 3:23-cv-00006-SLG Document 47 Filed 08/17/23 Page 3 of 3