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 INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
On December 31, 2020, David R. Ambrose, II, a self-represented litigant,
filed a Motion for Injunction and or Revote.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, Defendants have not made an appearance in this action.
1 Docket 9.
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 12 Filed 01/12/21 Page 1 of 7

Ambrose v. University of Alaska Fairbanks, et al. 	Case No. 4:20-cv-00043-RRB
Order Denying Motion for Injunctive Relief 	Page 2
I. 	ALLEGATIONS
Mr. Ambrose moves for “an injunction into the 2020 election certifications.”3
He alleges “a violation of the equal protection clause and 1st [A]mendment voting right.”4
Mr. Ambrose further alleges that he “voted based on a statistically likely outcome based
on 	the 	electoral 	college 	that 	may 	have 	been 	manipulated 	by 	policy 	and 	science,
arbitrarily.”5
In support of his motion, Mr. Ambrose encloses a letter to the Court. In his
letter, Mr. Ambrose discusses concerns raised in other pending motions before the Court
and the claims raised generally in his Complaint.6 	The core of his motion for injunctive
relief is that Mr. Ambrose is concerned about public safety regarding the possibility of
environmental toxics present in residential dwellings and public health guidance on
encouraging the public to stay at home and wear face coverings.7 Mr. Ambrose states:
The question remains as to whether or not the advice for
keeping people in homes instead of specifically out of them
was 	done 	intentionally, 	and 	whether 	or 	not 	anyone 	had
knowledge 	that 	environmental 	toxins 	in 	homes, 	wearing
masks, or lack of disseminated information could or may have
been used as a[n] arbitrary pretext to adjust the laws in
preparation for the 2020 election.8
3 Docket 9 at 1.
4 Id.
5 Id.
6 Id. at 3 (“If I had a wish it would be to amend my complaints with the assistance of counsel as
well in obtaining information and evidence. . . . I think a crucial component to my case is in obtaining
environmental toxicology information from my prior residence at 2338 B-line ct, as well as from the UAF
large animal research station. I cannot legally do that without specialist assistance from the government,
or financial assets allocated for me.”); see Dockets 2, 6, and 7.
7 Docket 9 at 3.
8 Id.
Case 4:20-cv-00043-RRB Document 12 Filed 01/12/21 Page 2 of 7

Ambrose v. University of Alaska Fairbanks, et al. 	Case No. 4:20-cv-00043-RRB
Order Denying Motion for Injunctive Relief 	Page 3
He alleges that “the basic assertion of my claim is in my inability to treat myself/get
treatment, as well as within the bounds of my [sic], and violations to my [F]irst
[A]mendment . . . . as a result of these shutdowns and policy changes my health and ability
to get treatment was affected and I believe it may be affecting others.”9
As his second exhibit, Mr. Ambrose submits a thread of emails between
himself and the Director of the Department of Equity and Compliance for the University
of Alaska Fairbanks.10 The emails indicate that Mr. Ambrose submitted various allegations
to the Department for investigation, which were organized into four groups. Three of the
matters were closed and one was referred to UAF Human Resources. There are no factual
descriptions or further explanations to the events or incidents referenced.11
II. 	LEGAL STANDARD FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
A Plaintiff seeking preliminary injunctive relief must establish that “(1) they
are likely to succeed on the merits; (2) they are likely to suffer irreparable harm in the
absence of preliminary relief; (3) the balance of equities tips in their favor; and (4) a
preliminary injunction is in the public interest.”12 	Under this standard, “plaintiffs must
establish that irreparable harm is likely, not just possible, in order to obtain a preliminary
injunction.”13 	In the Ninth Circuit, a sliding scale analysis may be applied in weighing
9 Id.
10 Id. at 4.
11 See id. at 4–6.
12 Sierra Forest Legacy v. Ray, 577 F.3d 1015, 1021 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing Winter v. Natural Res.
Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008)).
13 Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131 (9th Cir. 2011) (emphasis in
original).
Case 4:20-cv-00043-RRB Document 12 Filed 01/12/21 Page 3 of 7

Ambrose v. University of Alaska Fairbanks, et al. 	Case No. 4:20-cv-00043-RRB
Order Denying Motion for Injunctive Relief 	Page 4
factors (1), the likelihood of success on the merits, and (3), the balance of equities.14
Injunctive relief is an equitable remedy, and “[t]he essence of equity jurisdiction is the
power of the court to fashion a remedy depending upon the necessities of the particular
case.”15 	Accordingly, the Court considers the likelihood of success of Mr. Ambrose’s
underlying claims to determine if a preliminary injunction is warranted.
III. 	EQUAL PROTECTION CLAIM
Mr. Ambrose claims that his rights have been violated under the Equal
Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Equal Protection Clause prohibits a
state from “deny[ing] to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the
law.”16 In essence, the Clause “direct[s] that all persons similarly situated should be treated
alike.”17 The Supreme Court has recognized “equal protection claims brought by a ‘class
of one,’” where a plaintiff alleged “that she had intentionally been treated differently from
others similarly situated and that there is no rational basis for the difference in treatment.”18
In order to make a “class of one” equal protection claim, a plaintiff must allege three
elements: the defendants “(1) intentionally (2) treated [the plaintiff] differently than other
similarly situated, (3) without a rational basis.”19
14 Id. at 1131–32.
15 Sierra Forest, 577 F.3d at 1022 (citing United States v. Odessa Union Warehouse Co-op, 833
F.2d 172, 175 (9th Cir. 1987)).
16 U.S. Const. amend. XIV.
17 City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432, 439 (1985).
18 Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562, 564 (2000).
19 Gerhart v. Lake County, Mont., 637 F.3d 1013, 1022 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, ––– U.S. ––––, 132
S. Ct. 249 (2011) (rational basis is the most common doctrine governing equal protection claims and
requires that a law or policy must be rationally related to a legitimate state interest, see Hodel v. Indiana,
452 U.S. 314, 331–32 (1981)).
Case 4:20-cv-00043-RRB Document 12 Filed 01/12/21 Page 4 of 7

Ambrose v. University of Alaska Fairbanks, et al. 	Case No. 4:20-cv-00043-RRB
Order Denying Motion for Injunctive Relief 	Page 5
Mr. Ambrose alleges general questions around public health policy and the
recent 2020 presidential election.20 	He does not allege that these broad public health
policies intentionally caused him to be treated differently than other similarly situated
Alaskans without a rational basis. The elements of an equal protection claim have not been
alleged here.
IV. 	FIRST AMENDMENT CLAIM
Mr. Ambrose also alleges that his First Amendment right to vote has been
violated, “based on a statistically likely outcome based on the electoral college that may
have been manipulated by policy and science, arbitrarily.”21
The right to vote is not articulated in the First Amendment. 22 	In fact, the
right to vote does not appear in the U.S. Constitution until the Fifteenth, Nineteenth,
Twenty-fourth, and Twenty-sixth Amendments.23 	However, the Supreme Court has
recognized the right to vote under the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S.
Constitution.24 	Historically and for almost a century after its inception, the U.S.
Constitution did “not confer the right of suffrage upon any one,”25 and that “the right to
20 See Docket 9.
21 Id. at 1.
22 U.S. Const. amend. I (“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the
people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”).
23 	U.S. Const. amends. XV, XIX, XXIV, and XXVI (the right to vote shall not be denied or
infringed “on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude” (Fourteenth Amendment); “on
account of sex” (Nineteenth Amendment); “by reason of to pay any poll tax or other tax” (Twenty-fourth
Amendment); “on account of age” (Twenty-sixth Amendment granting universal suffrage to citizens at 18
years of age).
24 See Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992).
25 Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 178 (1874).
Case 4:20-cv-00043-RRB Document 12 Filed 01/12/21 Page 5 of 7

Ambrose v. University of Alaska Fairbanks, et al. 	Case No. 4:20-cv-00043-RRB
Order Denying Motion for Injunctive Relief 	Page 6
vote, 	per 	se, [was] 	not a constitutionally 	protected 	right.”26 	Amendments 	to the
Constitution later enshrined the right to vote.27 	However, states retain “broad power to
prescribe 	the 	Times, 	Places 	and 	Manner 	of 	holding 	Elections 	for 	Senators 	and
Representatives.”28 When evaluating election laws, courts must strike a balance between
the right of the state to manage its elections and the right of the individual to vote.29
Mr. Ambrose does not allege that an election law has infringed upon his right
to vote, but instead expresses distrust in public health policies that “could or may have been
used as an arbitrary pretext to adjust the laws in preparation for the 2020 election.” This
allegation does not allege a violation of Mr. Ambrose’s right to vote, but of a general
conjecture. 	The motion does not state sufficient factual matter that, if accepted as true,
“state[s] a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”30 Further, the U.S. Congress held a
joint session, heard objections, and certified the votes of the Electoral College on January 6,
2021,31 making Mr. Ambrose’s request for relief under the First Amendment moot.32
V. 	CONCLUSION
In assessing the elements for a preliminary injunction, Mr. Ambrose has not
demonstrated that he is likely to win on the merits of his Equal Protection Clause claim,
26 San Antonio Independent School Dist. v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1, 35, n.78, 93 S. Ct. 1278, 36 L.
Ed. 2d 16 (1973).
27 Supra note 22.
28 Tashjian v. Republican Party of Conn., 479 U.S. 208, 217 (1986).
29 Wash. State Grange v. Wash. State Republican Party, 552 U.S. 442, 451 (2008).
30 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 570 (2007)). In making this determination, a court may consider “materials that are submitted with
and attached to the Complaint.” United States v. Corinthian Colleges, 655 F.3d 984, 999 (9th Cir. 2011)
(citing Lee v. L.A., 250 F.3d 668, 688 (9th Cir. 2001)).
31 167 CONG. REC. 4 (2021).
32 The Court declines to address whether it could grant such relief, even if relief was not moot.
Case 4:20-cv-00043-RRB Document 12 Filed 01/12/21 Page 6 of 7

Ambrose v. University of Alaska Fairbanks, et al. 	Case No. 4:20-cv-00043-RRB
Order Denying Motion for Injunctive Relief 	Page 7
because he has not alleged the required essential elements as a threshold matter. Further,
Mr. Ambrose has not demonstrated he is likely to win on the merits of his First Amendment
claim, because he has not sufficiently plead factual material to state a claim. Accordingly,
Mr. Ambrose has not shown that he is likely to succeed on the merits of his claims. 	As
Mr. Ambrose has not fulfilled the first threshold element for granting a preliminary
injunction, the Court need not reach a conclusion as to the other elements for injunctive
relief. Therefore, the Motion for Injunction or Revote at Docket 9 is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 11th day of January, 2020, at Anchorage, Alaska.
/s/ Ralph R. Beistline
RALPH R. BEISTLINE
Senior United States District Judge
Case 4:20-cv-00043-RRB Document 12 Filed 01/12/21 Page 7 of 7