Title: BRUCE B. WILLIAMS v. CITY OF GILLETTE, WYOMING

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

BRUCE B. WILLIAMS v. CITY OF GILLETTE, WYOMING2011 WY 6Case Number: No. S-10-0070Decided: 01/19/2011NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in Pacific Reporter Third. Readers are requested to notify the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Supreme Court Building, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002, of any typographical or other formal errors so correction may be made before final publication in the permanent volume.
OCTOBER 
TERM, A.D. 2010

 
 

BRUCE 
B. WILLIAMS,Appellant (Plaintiff),v.CITY OF GILLETTE, 
WYOMING,Appellee (Defendant).

 
 
 
 
Appeal 
from the District Court of Campbell County

 
 

Representing 
Appellant:

Bruce 
B. Williams, pro 
se.

 
 

Representing 
Appellee:

Kate 
M. Fox and Amanda K. Ferguson of Davis & Cannon, LLP, Cheyenne, 
WY.

 
 
Before 
KITE, C.J., and GOLDEN, HILL, VOIGT, and BURKE, 
JJ.

 
 
 
 

HILL, 
Justice.

 
 

[¶1]      Appellant, 
Bruce B. Williams (Williams), appeals an Order Dismissing Case for Lack of 
Standing entered by the district court of Campbell County on March 18, 2010. 
 Williams contends that the district 
court's conclusion that he lacked standing to commence suit against the City of 
Gillette (City) as well as its 22,221 eligible voting citizens for damaging his 
freedom of speech, is erroneous.  We 
affirm the order of the district court.

 
 

IssueS

 
 

[¶2]      Williams 
presents the following 
six issues on appeal:

 
 

I.              
Does 
not being a citizen of Gillette preclude standing to sue? 

 
 

II.            
Is 
pleading intimidation after discussion with other people a speculative plea, 
precluding standing to sue? 

 
 

III.           
Is 
[Williams] not party to the intimidation that he claims violated his rights, 
precluding standing to sue? 

 
 

IV.          
Do 
[Williams'] allegations of intimidation not show an actual violation of a 
concrete and particularized legal interest, precluding standing to sue?  

 
 

V.           
Are 
[Williams'] claims of intimidation conjectural or hypothetical, precluding 
standing to sue? 

 
 

VI.          
 Does the City of Gillette and its 
citizens not have an interest in the outcome of the city court proceedings, 
precluding standing to sue? 

 
 
The 
City answers by succinctly raising the following two issues: 

 
 

I.              
Did 
[Williams] have standing to bring the action? 

 
 

II.            
Is 
[Williams'] claim barred by the Wyoming Governmental Claims Act and the doctrine 
of governmental immunity?

 
 
Facts

 
 
[¶3]      In September of 
2009, a Gillette police officer issued a "breach of the peace" ticket to 
nineteen-year-old Jonathon Wall after he reportedly "flipped off" the Gillette 
Chief of Police.  The City 
prosecutor dismissed the ticket.  
Campbell County resident Bruce Williams learned of the incident through 
the newspaper and filed a pro se suit 
against the City of Gillette and each of its 22,221 citizens for damage to his 
freedom of speech.  In the suit, 
Williams objects to the issuance of the ticket, its dismissal outside of open 
court, and the public's general "nonfeasance" regarding the matter.  Williams served the summons on the City 
but did not serve the individual citizens of Gillette, and sought damages in the 
amount of $22.2 million, to-wit: $1,000.00 from each of the individual 
defendants.

 
 
[¶4]      The district 
court granted the City's motion to dismiss for lack of standing.  The court based its decision on the 
following conclusions: 1) [Williams] is not a citizen of Gillette; 2) he pled 
only speculative harm; 3) he was not a party to the events that he claims 
violated his rights; 4) he did not show an actual violation of a concrete and 
particularized legal interest; 5) his claims are conjectural or hypothetical; 6) 
he does not have a personal interest in the outcome of the City court 
proceedings.

 
 
Discussion

 
 

Standard 
of Review

 
 
[¶5]      We review a 
district court's decision to dismiss a case de novo.  Elk Horn Ranch, Inc. v. Bd. of County 
Comm'rs, 2010 WY 49, ¶ 5, 229 P.3d 960, 961 (Wyo. 
2010).

 
 

Standing

 
 
[¶6] 
     With respect to 
standing, we have held: "Standing is a legal concept designed to determine 
whether a party is sufficiently affected to insure that the court is presented 
with a justiciable controversy."  Boykin v. Parkhurst (In re Parkhurst), 
2010 WY 155, ¶ 10, 243 P.3d. 961, 965 (Wyo. 2010) (quoting Pedro/Aspen, Ltd. v. Bd. of County 
Comm'rs, 2004 WY 84, ¶ 8, 94 P.3d 412, 415 (Wyo. 
2004)).

 
 

The 
doctrine of standing is a jurisprudential rule of jurisdictional magnitude. 
 At its most elementary level, the 
standing doctrine holds that a decision-making body should refrain from 
considering issues in which the litigants have little or no interest in 
vigorously advocating.  Accordingly, 
the doctrine of standing focuses upon whether a litigant is properly situated to 
assert an issue for judicial or quasi-judicial determination.  A litigant is said to have standing when 
he has a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy.'  This personal stake requirement has been 
described in Wyoming as a tangible interest' at stake.  The tangible interest requirement 
guarantees that a litigant is sufficiently interested in a case to present a 
justiciable controversy.

 
 

Id. 
 See In re Adoption of CF, 2005 WY 118, 
¶ 39, 120 P.3d 992, 10045 (Wyo. 2005); Jolley v. State Loan and Inv. Bd., 2002 
WY 7, ¶ 6, 38 P.3d 1073, 1076 
(Wyo. 2002); Roe v. Bd. of County 
Comm'rs, 997 P.2d 1021, 102223 (Wyo. 2000).

 
 
[¶7]      Upon our review 
of the record, we conclude that Williams does not have standing to bring this 
appeal.  Williams was not a party to 
the events he claims violated his freedom of speech.  He was not in the car when the original 
incident took place and was never cited with any ticket.  In fact, Williams is only aware of the 
events surrounding this lawsuit after reading a newspaper article on the 
incident.  The mere fact that he 
read a newspaper article does not vest him with the status of party. 

 
 
[¶8]      Moreover, the 
speculative harm Williams complains of cannot be cured through judicial 
determination.  We have previously 
held that an "interest 
which will sustain a right to appeal must generally be substantial, immediate, 
and pecuniary. A future, contingent, or merely speculative interest is 
ordinarily not sufficient."  
Sinclair Oil 
Corp. v. Wyo. PSC, 2003 WY 22, ¶ 11, 
63 P.3d 887, 895 (Wyo. 2003) (quoting In re Various Water Rights 
in Lake De Smet Reservoir, 623 P.2d 764, 
769 (Wyo. 1981)).  Williams 
cannot demonstrate how his right to freedom of speech has been damaged in any 
way.  In fact, Williams has 
expressed his disapproval of the incident through various opinion pieces he has 
authored in the Gillette newspaper.  Because his alleged injury is speculative 
in nature, Williams lacks a sufficient interest to present this Court with a 
justiciable controversy. 

 
 
CONCLUSION

 
 

[¶9] 
For these reasons, we affirm the district court's order dismissing Williams' 
complaint.  We need not address any 
of the other issues suggested by Williams.