Complaint for Declaratory Judgment and Stay

STATE OF MICHIGANIN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF WASHTENAW

Waleed Baker, Ahmed Abbas, Sabreen Dari, Tai Hornsby,James Murray IV, Tasneem Gaballah, Ahmed Abuzoor,Individuals and Students at Eastern Michigan University,

Plaintiffs, Case No.: 14-419-CZHon. Donald E. Shelton

v.

Eastern Michigan University, and Leigh Greden, in hisOfficial and personal capacity,Jointly and Severally,

Defendants._____________________________________________________________________________/

Fatina Abdrabboh (P76026)Attorney for Plaintiffs1806 N. TelegraphDearborn, MI 48128 _____________________________________________________________________________/

There is no other pending or resolvedcivil action arising out of the

transaction or occurrence allegedin this Complaint.

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, AND INJUNCTIVE STAY

NOW COMES Plaintiffs, by and through their attorney, Fatina Abdrabboh, and for their

Complaint states as follows:

1. Plaintiffs all reside in Michigan and are currently students at Eastern Michigan

University.

2. Defendant, Easter Michigan University (hereinafter “EMU”), is a Michigan public

university established by statue under the law of the State of Michigan.

3. Defendant, Leigh Greden, is EMU’s vice president for government and community

relations and election committee member and student government advisor.

4. All of the causes of action set forth in the Complaint arose within the County of

Washtenaw, State of Michigan.

5. The relief requested in this complaint is injunctive and equitable relief as well as

monetary damages.

COMMON ALLEGATIONS

6. Plaintiffs are students at EMU and eligible to vote for student government senators and

the student government president.

7. EMU conducted elections for the 2014/2015 school year on March 26th and 27th , 2014.

The election was for student government senators and student government president.

8. The only candidate allowed to be on the ballot for president (by name and picture) was

incumbent Desmond Miller (hereinafter “Desmond”). Exhibit 1.

9. One other candidate for president, Fatima K. Jaber (hereinafter “Jaber”), was allowed to

campaign and did so as a write-in candidate.

10. The ballot allowed the students of EMU to write-in any other candidate besides Desmond

Miller for president. Exhibit 1.

11. All Plaintiffs exercised their right to vote for president. They voted for Fatima Jaber by

the only means allowed - by write-in.

2

12. The results were as follows:

Desmond Miller – 1174 votesFatma Jaber – 1289 votes1

13. EMU, led by Leigh Greden (hereinafter “Greden”) would not count any votes for Jaber

unless the write-in votes included her name and the name of the vice president running on her

ticket. In other words, Greden required that all write-in votes for Jaber would only count if the

voter wrote in Jabers name along with her vice-presidents name. Simply stated, a write-in vote

for president written “Fatma Jaber” was not counted by Greden. Accordingly, Greden declared

that Jaber only received 85 votes and ignored the votes by Plaintiff and the other 1,288 students

who voted for “Fatma Jaber”.

14. The total number of write-in votes for “Fatma Jaber” alone was 1289. Many other forms

of Jaber’s name were not counted nor included in the aforementioned 1289 votes.

15. Aside from the other write in name variations that clearly intended to be cast in favor of

Fatma Jader for president, the clearly cast 1289 votes above where enough to elect Fatma Jaber

as President. Exhibit 2

16. Greden claimed in his report that ‘voter intent’ was the principle used when determining

to accept or reject write in votes.

17. Desmond Miller was the only non write in candidate in the election.

18. The Student Body Constitution of Eastern Michigan University (hereinafter “EMU

Constitution”) can be found on the Eastern Michigan University website under the name Leigh

Greden. Exhibit 3.

19. Section 2 of the aforementioned EMU Constitution states: “Student Voting Rights.

Members of the Student Body shall retain the right to vote in all General Elections of the Student

1 The total number of write-in votes for “Fatma Jaber” alone was 1289. Many other forms of Jaber’s name were not counted nor included in the aforementioned 1289 votes.

3

Body. Legislation may be passed which provides specific qualifications regarding voter rights

and procedure so long as such legislation does not disenfranchise any specific Members or

groups of Members of the Student Body.”

20. Upon information and belief, no legislation was passed that required voters to write-in

Jabers name along with the vice-presidents name. More over, upon information and belief, no

legislation was passed that axed Plaintiff’s vote along with at least 1,288 other student’s votes

that used Jaber’s name correctly.

21. Upon information and belief, Jaber filed a timely appeal requesting EMU and Greden to

count Plaintiff’s and other similarly situated voters (1288) intent to vote for Jaber.

22. Pursuant to the quorum requirements of the Constitution of the Eastern Michigan

University Student Government “Quorum shall be a majority of the Senate.” Exhibit 4 Art. III ¶

5(b).

23. On Tuesday, April 22, 2014, the student government senators met pursuant to the

constitution to vote on ratifying the election results which would have declared Desmond the

winner despite Fatma receiving the popular vote. The senators refused to ratify the election

results because doing so would disenfranchise Plaintiffs’ votes and all the other similarly situated

student votes (ie. doing so would have ignored Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated students

votes).

24. Upon information and belief, after the senators refused to ratify Desmond as student

government president, Greden organized an emergency meeting of the student government

senators to vote on ratifying the votes and declaring Desmond student government president.

25. The aforementioned meeting took place yesterday (April 24, 2014 at 6:30p.m). Upon

information and belief, only 11 senators and delegates out of 23 attended the meeting therefore

4

not meeting the quorum requirements as provided for in the Constitution of the Eastern Michigan

University Student Government which states that “Quorum shall be a majority of the Senate.”

Exhibit 4 Art. III ¶ 5(b).

26. . Instead of dismissing the senators and not holding a vote, the senators under Greden’s

supervision proceeded to vote on ratifying the election results which declared Desmond

president. Exhibit 5.

27. Despite not meeting the quorum requirement, the 10 senators under Greden’s

supervision, proceeded to vote and declared Desmond the winner despite Fatima receiving the

majority vote.

COUNT 1DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

28. Plaintiffs incorporate the foregoing paragraphs of its Verified Complaint as if fully set

forth herein.

29. Defendants insist that Plaintiffs votes and all other similarly situated student votes were

not intended to elect Jaber as student government president.

30. Plaintiffs and the all other similarly situated students (1200+) have a constitutional right

to have their votes counted and their voice be heard.

31. Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaration that their vote be counted.

32. Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaration that the senators’ ratification of Desmond as

president should be void ab initio.

33. Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaration that Defendants are obligated to perform all of their

obligations under the university constitution and the by-laws of student government.

34. Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaration that any purported modification by Defendants of

the university constitution and the by-laws of student government is unenforceable.

5

35. An actual controversy now exists between Plaintiffs and Defendants as to whether

Plaintiffs votes count towards electing the president of student government, and it is within the

jurisdiction of this Court, under MCL 600.605 and MCR 2.605, to render a declaratory judgment

as to the parties’ respective rights.

COUNT II INJUNCTIVE RELIEF


forth herein.

37. As set forth above, Defendants are in infringing on Plaintiffs and all other similarly

situated students right to have their votes counted.

38. Defendants’ acts and omissions cannot be remedied absent specific performance.

39. Legal damages are an inadequate remedy for the substantial injury that will be sustained

by Plaintiffs if their votes are not counted.

40. Additionally, the loss associated with Defendants conduct are exceedingly difficult, if not

impossible, to quantify.

41. An injunction is necessary and essential in order to prevent irreparable harm.

42. Should an injunction issue, there will be no harm or added obligation imposed upon

Defendants in being compelled to do that which they are required to do under the constitution

and by-laws.

43. Regardless, any harm imparted to Defendants would be outweighed by the significant

harm suffered by Plaintiffs if an injunction is not granted.

44. The public interest in counting votes is best served by issuing injunctive relief.

COUNT IIIINJUNCTIVE STAY

6


forth herein.

46. The constitution and by-laws mandate that all student votes will be counted.

47. That because of the position taken by Defendants as outlined above, Plaintiffs votes will

not be counted.

48. That this lawsuit is necessitated for a correct counting of the votes.

COUNT IV 42 U.S.C. § 1983 CLAIM PURSUANT TO VIOLATION OF

TITLE VI OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964


forth herein.

50. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits exclusion from participation in, denial

of benefits of, and discrimination under federally assisted programs on ground of race, color, or

national origin. 42 U.S.C. §2000d.

51. Defendants’ are recipients of federal assistance and/or federally assisted program.

52. Plaintiffs’ have a federal protected right to be free from exclusion from participation in,

denial of benefits of, and discrimination under federally assisted programs on ground of race,

color, or national origin under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§2000d to

2000d-7.

53. Defendants’ deprived the Plaintiffs of their federal right to be free from exclusion from

participation in, denial of benefits of, and discrimination under federally assisted programs on

ground of race, color, or national origin under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.

§§2000d to 2000d-7.

7

54. Defendants acted under color of law when Defendants subjected Plaintiffs to deprivation

of federally protected rights under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

55. Defendants directly and/or indirectly participated in the deprivation of the Plaintiffs

federal protected rights under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

56. Plaintiffs as EMU students have a right to participate in EMU activities.

57. Plaintiffs as EMU students have a right to participate in EMU elections.

58. Plaintiffs as EMU students have a right and/or benefit to vote in EMU elections.

59. Defendants excluded Plaintiff’s participation in voting by not meaningfully counting the

Plaintiffs’ votes in the EMU 2014/2015 election.

60. Defendants excluded Plaintiff’s participation in voting by voiding Plaintiffs’ votes in the

EMU 2014/2015 election.

61. Defendants denied Plaintiff’s benefits as students at EMU by not meaningfully counting

the Plaintiffs votes in the EMU 2014/2015 election.

62. Defendants denied Plaintiff’s benefits as students at EMU by not meaningfully counting

the Plaintiffs’ votes in the EMU 2014/2015 election.

63. Defendants actions amounted to denial of Plaintiffs’ federally protected rights under Title

VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

64. Defendants had ill motive in calling of an emergency meeting with the Eastern Michigan

University Election Commission on the night of April 24, 2014 without the Plaintiffs knowledge

and/or without the Plaintiffs presence.

65. Defendants engaged in grave unfairness motivated by discriminatory animus based on

race, color, and/or national origin.

8

66. Defendants had a discriminatory purpose based on race, color, and/or national origin in

calling of an emergency meeting with the Eastern Michigan University Election Commission on

the night of April 24, 2014 without the Plaintiffs’ knowledge and/or without the Plaintiffs

presence.

67. Defendants had a discriminatory intent based on race, color, and/or national origin in

calling of an emergency meeting with the Eastern Michigan University Election Commission on

the night of April 24, 2014 without the Plaintiffs knowledge and/or without the Plaintiffs

presence.




disqualifying Jaber, from the 2014/2015 EMU election.

70. Defendants had a discriminatory intent purpose based on race, color, and/or national

origin in disqualifying Jaber, from the 2014/2015 EMU election.




voiding Plaintiffs votes in the 2014/2015 EMU election.

73. Defendants had a discriminatory intent based on race, color, and/or national origin in

voiding Plaintiffs votes in the 2014/2015 EMU election.

74. Defendants actions amounted to denial of Plaintiffs federally protected rights under Title


9


deciding to ratify the Eastern Michigan University Election Commission’s investigation reports

and effectively elect the incumbent, Desmond.

76. Defendants had discriminatory intent based on race, religion, color, and/or national origin

in deciding to ratify the Eastern Michigan University Election Commission’s investigation

reports and effectively elect the incumbent, Desmond.



78. Defendants are the proximate cause of the deprivation of the Plaintiffs’ federally

protected rights under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

79. Defendants’ proximately caused Plaintiffs’ exclusion from participation in the EMU

2014/2015 election by prohibiting the Plaintiff’s from having their votes meaningfully counted.


2014/2015 election by prohibiting the Plaintiff’s from having their votes voided.


2014/2015 election by disqualifying Jabber based on discriminatory biases.

82. Defendants’ proximately caused Plaintiffs’ denial of benefits of voting in the EMU

2014/2015 election guaranteed to all EMU students by prohibiting the Plaintiff’s from having

their votes from being meaningfully counted.

83. Defendants proximately caused Plaintiffs denial of benefits of voting in the EMU

2014/2015 election guaranteed to all EMU students by voiding their votes.

84. Defendants proximately caused Plaintiffs’ exclusion from participation in the EMU

2014/2015 election by disqualifying Jabber based on discriminatory biases.

10

COUNT V42 U.S.C. § 1983 CLAIM PURSUANT TO VIOLATION OF EQUAL PROTECTION


forth herein.

86. The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment of the United States Constitution

prohibits states from denying any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

87. Plaintiffs’ unequivocally expressed the intent to vote for Fatina Jabbah in the EMU

2014/2015 election.

88. Defendants’ deprived the Plaintiffs of their Constitutional right to equal protection of the

laws under the Equal Protection Clause. U.S. Const. amend. XIV.

89. Defendants failed to uphold the Plaintiff’s right to have their vote meaningfully counted.

90. Defendants’ granted the right to have vote meaningfully counted to only particular

students at EMU but denied the Plaintiffs’, whom are similarly situated, the right to have their

vote meaningfully counted.

91. Defendants’ disenfranchise the Plaintiffs’ right to vote.

92. Defendants’ voided the Plaintiffs’ votes for Jaber.

93. Defendants’ acted under color of law when Defendants’ subjected Plaintiffs’ to

deprivation of Constitutional right under the Equal Protection Clause.

94. Defendants’ directly and/or indirectly participated in the deprivation of the Plaintiffs’

Constitutional right under the Equal Protection Clause.

95. Defendants’ actions amounted to denial of Plaintiffs’ Equal Protection Rights.

96. Defendants’ had a discriminatory purpose based on race, color, and/or national origin in

deciding that the Plaintiffs’ votes for Fatima Jabber would were insufficient because the

Plaintiffs’ did not include Jaber’s vice presidential candidate.

11

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxiv.html

97. Defendants’ had a discriminatory intent based on race, color, and/or national origin in

deciding that the Plaintiffs’ votes for Fatima Jabber would were insufficient because the

Plaintiffs’ did not include Jabber’s vice presidential candidate.



voiding Plaintiffs’ votes in the 2014/2015 EMU election.

100. Defendants’ had a discriminatory intent based on race, color, and/or national origin in

voiding Plaintiffs’ votes in the 2014/2015 EMU election.



deciding to ratify the Eastern Michigan University Election Commission’s investigation reports

and effectively elect the incumbent, Desmond, without Plaintiffs’ votes counted.

103. Defendants’ had discriminatory intent based on race, religion, color, and/or national

origin in deciding to ratify the Eastern Michigan University Election Commission’s investigation

reports and effectively elect the incumbent, Desmond, without Plaintiffs’ votes counted.

104. Defendants’ actions amounted to denial of Plaintiffs’ Equal Protection rights.

105. Defendants’ are the proximate cause of the deprivation of the Plaintiffs’ Constitutional

rights under the Equal Protection Clause.

COUNT VI42 U.S.C. § 1983 CLAIM PURSUANT TO DUE PROCESS VIOLATION


forth herein.

12

107. Plaintiffs’ have a Constitutional right to Due Process pursuant to the Fourteenth

Amendment of the United States Constitution.

108. Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides that a person shall not be

deprived life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

109. Defendants’ deprived the Plaintiffs’ of their Due Process rights to liberty.

110. Defendants’ acted under color of law when depriving Plaintiffs’ of their Due Process

Rights.

111. Plaintiffs’ as EMU students have a right to vote in EMU elections.

112. Plaintiffs’ as EMU students have a right to have their vote in EMU elections

meaningfully counted.

113. Defendants failed to afford Plaintiffs’ certain procedures before depriving the Plaintiffs’

of their right to vote.

114. Defendants’ failed to give notice to the Plaintiffs’ that their vote would not be counted.

115. Defendants’ failed to afford the Plaintiffs’ an opportunity to heard in a meaningful way.

116. Defendants’ deprived Plaintiffs’ of their right to have their vote meaningfully counted

without a hearing.

117. Defendants’ voided Plaintiffs’ votes without a hearing.

118. Defendants’ actions amounted to denial of Plaintiffs’ Due Process Rights.

119. Defendants’ are the proximate cause of the deprivation of the Plaintiffs’ Due Process

Rights.


forth herein.

13

RELIEF REQUESTED

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully requests that the Court issue an order providing for:

a. A declaratory judgment under MCR 2.605 and MCL 600.605 that

Plaintiffs votes and all other similarly situated student votes be counted;

b. A temporary, preliminary and permanent injunction be issued as requested

in their Emergency Motion;

c. An injunction staying the ratification of the presidency of student

government as provided for in their Emergency Motion; and

e. Such other relief as this Court may deem just, equitable or appropriate

under the circumstances.

Respectfully Submitted,

_____________________________Fatina Abdrabboh (P76026)

Dated: April 24, 2014

14

Complaint for Declaratory Judgment and Stay

Documents

Transcript of Complaint for Declaratory Judgment and Stay