Overby v. Simon

U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota November 2, 2020

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Paula M. Overby, Case No. 20-cv-2250 (WMW/TNL)

Plaintiff,
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
v. MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION
Steve Simon, in his official capacity as
Minnesota Secretary of State, and Timothy
Walz, in his official capacity as Governor
of Minnesota,

Defendants.

Before the Court is Plaintiff Paula M. Overby’s motion for a preliminary
injunction.1 (Dkt. 29.) For the reasons addressed below, Overby’s motion is denied.
Overby is the Legal Marijuana Now Party’s (LMNP) candidate for Minnesota’s
Second Congressional District. Overby asserts that she replaced Adam Weeks as
LMNP’s candidate for Minnesota’s Second Congressional District after Weeks’s death
on September 21, 2020. Overby seeks (1) a declaration upholding Minnesota Statutes
Section 204B.13 (Minnesota Nominee Vacancy Statute) as consistent with federal statute,

1 Overby did not file a separate motion for declaratory and injunctive relief. But
Overby’s complaint, filed on October 29, 2020, includes a document labeled “Complaint
for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief” and in this document Overby “requests expedited
handling of the motion.” Because Overby is proceeding pro se in this action, her
pleadings are construed liberally. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), (f); accord Erickson v.
Pardus,

551 U.S. 89, 94

 (2007).  Therefore, the Court construed the “Complaint for 
Declaratory and Injunctive Relief” attached to Overby’s civil complaint as a motion for 
expedited preliminary injunctive relief.  On October 30, 2020, the Court ordered Overby 
to serve Defendants with a summons, a copy of the complaint, and this Court’s October 
30, 2020 Order.  Overby failed to do so.  Despite Overby’s failure to comply with the 
Court’s October 30, 2020 Order, Defendants timely filed a response.       
(2) an injunction that enjoins Defendants from certifying election results for the United 
States House of Representatives in Minnesota’s Second Congressional District until the 
constitutionality of the Minnesota Nominee Vacancy Statute is determined by federal 

courts, (3) a declaration that Minnesota may hold a special election as prescribed under 
the Minnesota Nominee Vacancy Statute, and (4) an order requiring the Governor of the 
State of Minnesota to issue a writ calling for a special election to be held in February 
2021 for Minnesota’s Second Congressional District.  The relief that Overby seeks is 
inconsistent  with  this  Court’s  conclusions  in  Craig  v.  Simon,  No.  20-cv-2066 

(WMW/TNL),

2020 WL 5988497

 (D. Minn. Oct. 9, 2020).  Both the United States Court 
of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and this Court denied motions to stay the injunction in 
that  case,  on  the  grounds  that  the  Minnesota  Nominee  Vacancy  Statute  likely  is 
preempted by federal law.  See Craig v. Simon, No. 20-3126,

2020 WL 6253445

, at *4–5 
(8th Cir. Oct. 23, 2020).  And on October 27, 2020, the Supreme Court of the United 

States  denied  an  emergency  application  to  stay  this  Court’s  preliminary  injunction.  
Kistner v. Craig, No. 20A73 (Oct. 27, 2020).  Now, for the reasons addressed in this 
Court’s October 9, 2020 Order in Craig, Overby’s motion for emergency injunctive relief 
as to the Minnesota Nominee Vacancy Statute is denied.                    
Overby also seeks injunctive relief in the form of an order requiring Minnesota’s 

Secretary of State to register Overby’s candidacy.  A district court considers four factors 
to  determine  whether  preliminary  injunctive  relief  is  warranted:  (1)  the  movant’s 
likelihood of success on the merits, (2) the threat of irreparable harm to the movant, (3) 
the state of balance between the harm to the movant and the injury that granting an 
injunction  will  inflict  on  other  parties  to  the  litigation  and  (4) the  public  interest.  
Dataphase Sys., Inc. v. C L Sys., Inc.,

640 F.2d 109, 114

 (8th Cir. 1981).  The purpose of 
a preliminary injunction is to maintain the status quo.  Devose v. Herrington,

42 F.3d 470, 471

 (8th Cir. 1994).  The burden rests with the moving party, Overby, to establish that 
injunctive relief should be granted.  Watkins Inc. v. Lewis,

346 F.3d 841, 844

 (8th Cir. 
2003).  And this Court is mindful that preliminary injunctive relief is an extraordinary 
remedy that is never awarded as of right.  Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc.,

555 U.S. 7, 24

 (2008).  Regarding the preliminary injunction she seeks, Overby fails to address any 

of the Dataphase factors or to provide any legal basis in support of a conclusion that such 
relief is warranted.  In light of these deficiencies, Overby fails to meet her legal burden to 
obtain injunctive relief.  Consequently, the Court denies Overby’s request that this Court 
order Minnesota’s Secretary of State to register Overby’s candidacy.      
Based on the foregoing analysis and all the files, records and proceedings herein, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff Paula M. Overby’s motion for a preliminary 
injunction, (Dkt. 29), is DENIED.                                         

Dated:  November 2, 2020                s/Wilhelmina M. Wright            
                                   Wilhelmina M. Wright              
                                   United States District Judge