IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
DENNIS ATIYEH,
Plaintiff,
v. Civil Action No. 1:26-CV-2813
AL SCHMIDT, in his official capacity as
Secretary of the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania,
Defendant.
1. Plaintiff Dennis Atiyeh respectfully requests reconsideration of the Court’s Order denying his Motion for Preliminary Injunction.
2. Plaintiff never testified that he did not obtain 5,000 signatures. When questioned by the Court, Plaintiff testified that he had distributed approximately 320 nomination papers. The delay and time constraint contributed to the inability to gather all nomination papers. Plaintiff’s position was that the problems with his nomination papers resulted from the late availability of the proper nomination materials.
3. Plaintiff introduced Exhibit 1, which was marked “Rev. 3/26.” By contrast, the copies of the nomination papers introduced by Defendant did not contain the same “Rev. 3/26” designation. Defendant’s witness also could not confirm through his testimony that the revised version bearing that designation was actually posted on the Department of State website on March 11, 2026.
4. This distinction is material. Evidence that some version of a nomination paper existed electronically does not necessarily establish that the same revised nomination paper ultimately provided to Plaintiff was available to him on March 11.
5. Plaintiff respectfully submits that this factual dispute should have weighed more heavily in determining whether he demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits.
6. Plaintiff further objects to the Court’s reliance on the two emails referenced in Defendant’s filings at Documents 13 and 13-1. Those emails were offered as evidence that other candidates allegedly accessed nomination materials from the Department’s website. Plaintiff objected to those emails at the hearing on hearsay grounds. Furthermore, there is no response from the state to the email confirming the March access date. Finally, the witness for the state could not confirm whether the updated nomination papers were available on March 11. Also, it was Plaintiff’s testimony that the call center and website were relaying different information if in fact the Defendant is correct that the information was available on line. The office department of state employee, stated the website was not available; if it actually was false information that is was not available, this false information was relayed to the caller Plaintiff over the phone resulting in him not accessing the website. Even so, as Plaintiff testified, he called several times to the same response that it was not yet available.
7. As Plaintiff understands the record, the emails were communications sent to the Department of State by individuals outside the Department. They were not responses from the Department confirming what version of the nomination papers was available, when that particular version became available, or what information appeared on the Department’s website at the relevant time.
8. There was likewise no response from the Department contained in those emails independently confirming the assertions made by the senders. Plaintiff therefore respectfully submits that the emails should not have been treated as proof of the truth of the assertions contained within them without consideration of Plaintiff’s evidentiary objection and without establishing an appropriate evidentiary basis for their admission, as any response given by the Defendant representative is hearsay.
9. The distinction is particularly important because the Court relied in part upon these emails in concluding that other candidates were able to access the relevant nomination papers on March 10, 2026. Plaintiff respectfully requests reconsideration of whether those communications establish that factual proposition, particularly in light of Plaintiff’s hearsay objection and the unresolved issue concerning the “Rev. 3/26” designation appearing on Plaintiff’s nomination papers.
10. Defendant’s witness also testified regarding the amount of time necessary to add Plaintiff’s name to the ballot. Plaintiff recalls testimony indicating that many smaller counties could add Plaintiff to their ballots relatively quickly and that even some larger counties could make the necessary changes within approximately one week.
11. Plaintiff therefore respectfully submits that the factual record regarding the practical feasibility of adding his name to the ballot should be considered when applying the Purcell principle.
12. Plaintiff further contends that Defendant did not establish that all—or even most—Pennsylvania counties had already transmitted mail-in ballots at the relevant time.
13. Plaintiff recognizes the Court’s concern regarding judicial intervention close to an election. However, Plaintiff respectfully submits that the Purcell principle should not operate as an automatic bar where the evidence demonstrates that relief remained operationally possible and where the alleged actions of election officials contributed to the circumstances requiring emergency judicial intervention.
14. The evidence concerning Plaintiff’s communications with the Department should also be reconsidered. Defendant’s witness testified that it is Department policy to respond to communications. Plaintiff repeatedly requested written confirmation of the Department’s position regarding his request for additional time but received no written response.
15. Plaintiff thereafter attempted to submit his request by mail. Plaintiff maintains that he was provided an incorrect mailing address and that his correspondence was ultimately returned approximately three weeks later. These facts are relevant not simply as an independent claim concerning an extension but as part of the cumulative circumstances Plaintiff contends substantially interfered with his ability to obtain meaningful ballot access. The delays were caused by Defendants failure by their own admission.
16. Plaintiff’s constitutional claim should therefore be considered based upon the cumulative effect of the circumstances he presented: the dispute concerning the availability of the proper nomination papers, the proof through the “Rev. 3/26” designation, the requirements governing the organization of nomination signatures by county, the Department’s failure to respond in writing to Plaintiff’s request, the address provided for his written correspondence, and the refusal to provide additional circulation time.
Taken together, Plaintiff respectfully submits that these circumstances establish a substantially stronger likelihood of success than the Court’s Opinion recognized and warrant reconsideration of the denial of preliminary injunctive relief.
WHEREFORE
Plaintiff Dennis Atiyeh respectfully requests that this Court reconsider its Order denying preliminary injunctive relief, reconsider the evidentiary and factual issues identified above, and grant such further relief as the Court deems just and appropriate.
Respectfully submitted,
Dennis Atiyeh
Plaintiff, Pro Se
610-714-4839 October 7, 2026