UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
February 7, 2008
LESTER FREEMAN, PLAINTIFF,
LUCILLE MCKNIGHT, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gary L. Sharpe U.S. District Court Judge
Decision and Order
On October 30, 2007, pro se plaintiff Lester Freeman filed an Order to Show Cause for a Preliminary Injunction/Temporary Restraining Order asking the court to enjoin the certification of the 2nd Legislative District Albany County Democratic Primary. (Dkt. No. 4.) By Decision and Order dated November 2, 2007, the court denied Freeman's application for a preliminary injunction and TRO. (Dkt. No. 5.) Pending are: (1) the motion by defendants Albany County, John Graziano, and Mathew Cline for an Order dismissing the Complaint for lack of standing, lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and mootness, (Dkt. No. 7); and (2) the motion by defendant Lucille McKnight for an Order dismissing the Complaint on the same grounds, (Dkt. No. 8). The motions, which the court construes as motions for summary judgment,*fn1 are unopposed.
The Local Rules provide that [w]here a properly filed motion is unopposed and the Court determines that the moving party has met its burden to demonstrate entitlement to the relief requested therein, the non-moving party's failure to file or serve any papers as this Rule requires shall be deemed as consent to the granting . . . of the motion . . . unless good cause is shown.
N.D.N.Y. Local Rule 7.1(b)(3). Here, the defendants have demonstrated their entitlement to the relief requested. The relief Freeman seeks in his Complaint is a declaration certifying him as the winner of the primary election for Democratic candidate for the general election for the Second Legislative District in the Albany County Legislature. (Compl. ¶ 15, Dkt. No. 1.) However, the general election was held on November 6, 2007. (See Defs.' Statement of Material Facts ¶ 7, Dkt. No. 7.) Thus, the relief sought by Freeman is moot. See Freedom Party v. N.Y.S. Bd. of Elections, 77 F.3d 660, 662-63 (2d Cir. 1996).*fn2
In light of the court's determination that the case is moot, the court need not address the defendants' remaining contentions.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, it is hereby
ORDERED that the defendants' motions for summary judgment (Dkt. Nos. 7 and 8) are GRANTED; and it is further
ORDERED that the Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk enter judgment and close the case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.