Ambrose v. University of Alaska Fairbanks et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
DAVID R. AMBROSE, II,
Plaintiff,
vs.
UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA
FAIRBANKS, CDC, DEA, FBI, U.S.
CONGRESS, U.S. CORPORATION,
and FOUNDATION HEALTH
PARTNERS.,
Defendants.
Case No. 4:20-cv-00043-RRB
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR SPECIAL REQUEST
On January 6, 2020, David R. Ambrose, II, a self-represented litigant, filed
two 	Motions 	for 	Special 	Request.1 	Mr. 	Ambrose 	filed 	a 	civil 	complaint 	on
December 10, 2020, along with an Application to Procced without Prepayment of
the 	Filing 	Fee, 	subject 	to 	pre-litigation 	screening 	under 	28 	U.S.C. 	§ 1915.2
Screening on the Complaint is pending. As such, the Defendants have not made
an appearance in this action.
1 Dockets 10 & 13.
2 Dockets 1 & 2; see, e.g., Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126 n.7 (9th Cir. 2000)
(holding that pre-litigation screening applies to both prisoners and non-prisoner litigants
seeking to proceed in forma pauperis.).
Case 4:20-cv-00043-RRB Document 14 Filed 01/14/21 Page 1 of 3

4:20-cv-00043-RRB, Ambrose v. University of Alaska Fairbanks, et al
Order Denying Motion for Special Request
Page 2 of 3
I. 	Allegations
At Docket 10, Mr. Ambrose moves the Court to “order all 50 states to conduct
fair paper balloting,” because of “arbitrary election process.”3 	At Docket 13, he
moves the Court to “allow Trump to rerun on a new ticket if he so chooses” for
“personal reasons” not further elaborated by Mr. Ambrose.4
II. 	Motions
Motions made to this Court must include “(1) a brief statement of the
requested relief; (2) a brief discussion of applicable points and authorities; and
(3) supporting admissible evidence with deposition evidence restricted to relevant
excerpts.”5 Mr. Ambrose does not provide the Court with any authority or evidence
on which to grant his motion.
III. 	Relief Cannot be Granted
Mr. Ambrose requests relief that this Court cannot grant. At the core of both
Mr. Ambrose’s requests is the desire for the 2020 presidential election to be recast.
However, the U.S. Constitution, in addition to state and federal election law, hold
strict procedures and mandates regarding presidential elections. This includes the
day upon which the election is held, the individual state procedures for vote
counting and recounting, the certifying of each state’s results, the casting of the
ballots by the Electoral College electors of each state, and the certifying of the
3 Docket 10 at 1.
4 Docket 10 at X.
5 Local Civil Rule 7.1(a).
Case 4:20-cv-00043-RRB Document 14 Filed 01/14/21 Page 2 of 3

4:20-cv-00043-RRB, Ambrose v. University of Alaska Fairbanks, et al
Order Denying Motion for Special Request
Page 3 of 3
Electoral College certificates.6 On January 6, 2021, the last stage of this election
process occurred when the U.S. Congress held a joint session, heard objections,
and subsequently certified the votes of the Electoral College.7 	The Court cannot
grant the relief that Mr. Ambrose requests.
IV. 	Conclusion
Mr. Ambrose has not submitted authorities or evidence to support his
motions, nor can this Court grant the relief requested. Accordingly, the Motion for
Special Request at Docket 10 is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED at Anchorage, Alaska, this 13th day of January, 2021.
/s/ Ralph R. Beistline
RALPH R. BEISTLINE
Senior United States District Judge
6 See U.S. Const. amends. XII & XX; 3 U.S.C. § 1, et seq.; see generally Bush v.
Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 112–13 (2000) (Rehnquist, J., concurring); Katherine Wiles, How the
Election Certification Process Works, and Why It Matters, MARKETPLACE (Nov. 13, 2020),
https://www.marketplace.org/2020/11/13/how-election-certification-works-when-will-
2020-be-certified/.
7 167 CONG. REC. 4 (2021).
Case 4:20-cv-00043-RRB Document 14 Filed 01/14/21 Page 3 of 3