United States Court of Appeals
                     for the Eighth Circuit
                         ___________
      
                         No. 98-2503
                         ___________
         
Martin Lindstedt,               *
                                *
          Appellant,            *
                                *
     v.                         *  Appeal from the United States
                                *  District Court for the
Missouri Libertarian Party;     *  Western District of Missouri
Rebecca M. Cook; James Givens;  *
State of Missouri,              *     [TO BE PUBLISHED]
                                *
          Appellees.            *
                                    ___________
         
             Submitted:   October 30, 1998
         
             Filed:   November 18, 1998
                                    ___________
         
 Before McMILLIAN, RICHARD S. ARNOLD, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, 
 Circuit Judges.
                                    ___________
      
  PER CURIAM.
         
     Martin Lindstedt appeals from the final order entered in the 
District Court(1) for the Western District of Missouri granting 
summary judgment in favor of the Missouri Libertarian Party 
(Libertarian Party) and the State of Missouri and the Secretary of
         
----------------------

(1)  The Honorable D. Brook Bartlett, Chief Judge, United States
District Court for the Western District of Missouri.
         
                             -1-
         
____________________________________________________________________         
         
 

 State, Rebecca Cook (the State defendants).  For the reasons 
 discussed below, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
         
    Lindstedt alleged that the Libertarian Party refused to waive 
 or refund the $200 filing fee required for a place on the 1996 
 gubernatorial primary ballot, tried to prevent him from running, 
 and later passed and implemented a "bill of attainder" in an 
 attempt to remove him from his positions within the Libertarian 
 Party, in violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985(3).  Lindstedt 
 further alleged that the Secretary of State's office refused to 
file his candidacy for governor because he had not paid the filing 
fee provided for in Mo. Rev. Stat. § 115.357 (1994); Lindstedt 
later obtained a loan, paid the $200 filing fee, and was allowed 
to file.  Lindstedt sought a ruling on the constitutionality of 
 § 115.357.  The district court granted the Libertarian Party's 
and the State defendants' separate motions for summary judgment.
         
    We review a grant of summary judgment de novo.  See Dulany v. 
Carnahan, 132 F.3d 1234, 1237 (8th Cir. 1997) (standard of review). 
To succeed in his  § 1983 claims, Lindstedt had to show the 
Libertarian Party's actions were taken under color of state law, 
resulting in a deprivation of rights secured by the Constitution or 
federal law.  See Brouhard v. Lee, 125 F.3d 656, 659 (8th Cir. 
1997).  We conclude that Lindstedt did not point to any facts 
showing the Libertarian Party was acting under color of state law 
when it refused to refund his $200 or when it acted to expel him 
from his positions within the Libertarian Party.  See Johnson v. 
Knowles, 113 F.3d 1114, 1120 (9th Cir.) (county Republican Central 
Committee was not government actor because nothing tied state to 
particular decision to expel two members because of their sexual 
orientation), cert. denied, 118 S. Ct. 559 (1997); Banchy v. 
Republican Party, 898 F.2d 1192, 1195 (6th Cir. 1990) (party 
did not act under color of state law in precluding members from 
voting in internal election for ward chairman).  We also conclude 
that Lindstedt failed to show that some racial or other class-based 
invidiously discriminatory animus lay behind the Libertarian Party's 
decision to expel him from the organization and to refuse to refund 
his filing fee.  See 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3); Bray v. Alexandria Women's 
Health
         

                            -2-
         
         
___________________________________________________________________         
         
         
         
Clinic, 506 U.S. 263, 268 (1993); Larson ex rel. Larson v. Miller, 
76 F.3d 1446, 1454 (8th Cir. 1996) (en banc) (elements of  § 1985(3) 
action).
         
         
   Under Missouri law, a person who cannot pay the $200 fee to be 
a candidate for governor may have the fee waived by filing a 
declaration of inability to pay and a petition signed by the number 
of registered voters in the state equal to at least one-half of one 
percent of the total number of votes cast in the state for governor 
at the last election.  See Mo. Rev. Stat.  § 115.357.1-3 (1994). 
After reviewing the Missouri statute, we believe it provides a 
constitutionally adequate alternative means of ballot access to 
indigent candidates who cannot pay filing fees, without acting as 
an unreasonable barrier to an indigent's right to run for office. 
See Lubin v. Panish, 415 U.S. 709, 718 (1974); cf. Green v. 
Mortham, 155 F.3d 1332, 1337-38 (11th Cir. 1998) (petition 
requiring signatures of 3% (4,077 voters) of registered voters in 
congressional district to appear on party primary ballot was 
reasonable); Andress v. Reed, 880 F.2d 239, 240, 242 (9th Cir. 
1989) (upholding as reasonable requirement that candidate obtain 
10,000 signatures before being placed on ballot for office of U.S. 
Senator on Democratic ticket).
         
   Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
         
         
   A true copy.
         
          Attest:
         
            CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.




                                         -3-

_____________________________________________________________________

See Nov. 18, 1998 opinion at:

http://www.wulaw.wustl.edu/8th.cir/Opinions/981118/982503.P8


 

Comment: .

.

Next to Petition for Rehearing -- Nov. 30, 1998
Back to Lindstedt v. The Missouri Libertarian Party, et. al.,
Over to The Martin Lindstedt Skrule of Law?
Over to Patrick Henry On-Line?