UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

CALVIN WILSON, DAVID BLUME, and ) 

ASIA MARSHALL, individually and on ) 

behalf of all other similarly situated persons, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiffs, ) 

 ) 

 v. ) CAUSE NO.: 1:15-CV-402-TLS 

 ) 

ALLEN COUNTY COUNCIL, ALLEN ) 

ALLEN COUNTY BOARD OF ) 

COMMISSIONERS, and ALLEN ) 

COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER BOARD, ) 

 ) 

Defendants. ) 

OPINION AND ORDER 

 The Plaintiffs, Calvin Wilson, David Blume, and Asia Marshall, on behalf of themselves 

and others similarly situated, have brought this class action against Defendants, the Allen County 

Council, the Allen County Board of Commissioners, and the Allen County Public Defender 

Board, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Plaintiffs 

allege that the Defendants fail to provide effective assistance of counsel to indigent defendants 

charged with committing misdemeanor crimes in the courts of Allen County, Indiana in violation 

of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Section 13(a) of 

Article 1 of the Indiana State Constitution. On August 30, 2016, the Plaintiffs filed their First 

Amended Motion for Class Certification [ECF No. 48]. On February 6, 2017, the Defendants 

filed their Objection [ECF No. 57] to the Plaintiffs’ Motion. On February 10, 2017, the Plaintiffs 

filed their Reply [ECF No. 58]. Discovery on this case is ongoing, with an expected conclusion 

date of September 13, 2017. (See June 20, 2017 Order, ECF No. 75).
2

 Upon review of the parties’ briefing, the Court notes that the Defendants’ Objection is 

entirely premised on the basis of the Named Plaintiffs’ lack of Article III standing. (See Defs’ 

Obj., ECF No. 57.) Moreover, the Defendants state that they intend to file a Motion to Dismiss 

on the same point: 

The Named Plaintiffs lack of Article III standing to continue pursuing their 

individual claims in this cause of action also means that this cause of action has become 

moot and should be dismissed as to the Named Plaintiffs. In light of this reality, the 

Defendants do intend to file a motion to dismiss this cause of action in its entirety based 

on the fact that the Named Plaintiffs’ claims are now moot and, therefore, this Court no 

longer has jurisdiction over this cause of action. 

(Defs’ Obj. 10 n.2 (citations omitted), ECF No. 57.) 

 Accordingly, this Court is called upon to address the Plaintiffs’ standing to bring the 

instant action. The issue of standing presents “the threshold question in every federal case . . . .” 

Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 498 (1974). The Court is “obligated to address . . . standing 

because it is a predicate to our subject matter jurisdiction here.” Lindley v. Sullivan, 889 F.2d 

124, 128 n.3 (7th Cir. 1989). “The Court simply cannot close its eyes to evidence that calls into 

question its jurisdiction over a case.” Illinois Sporting Goods Ass’n v. Cty. of Cook, 884 F. Supp. 

275, 282 (N.D. Ill. 1995). 

Because the Defendants indicate that they will file a Motion to Dismiss on the issue of 

standing, the Court terms, with leave to refile, the Plaintiffs’ First Amended Motion for Class 

Action. The Court grants the Defendants until September 13, 2017, to file a motion to dismiss. 

Upon receipt of the parties’ completed briefing on the motion, the Court will address the issues 

raised in the motion to dismiss, including standing. 
3

CONCLUSION 

 Accordingly, the Court DENIES, WITH LEAVE TO REFILE, the Plaintiffs’ First 

Amended Motion for Class Certification [ECF No. 48]. The Court GRANTS the Defendants 

until September 15, 2017, to file their Motion to Dismiss. 

 SO ORDERED on August 14, 2017. 

 s/ Theresa L. Springmann 

 CHIEF JUDGE THERESA L. SPRINGMANN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT