Page 1 of 6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

JAMES C PRUETTE JR.,

Petitioner,

v. CASE NO. 5:10-cv-277-RS-GRJ

CALHOUN COUNTY BOARD

OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS,

Respondent.

_____________________________/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Before the Court is Respondent Calhoun County’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 6). 

Petitioner filed an untimely response to the motion to dismiss (Doc. 8). Accordingly, this

matter is ripe for review. For the reasons discussed below, it is respectfully

RECOMMENDED that Respondent Calhoun County’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 6) be

GRANTED.

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff initiated this cause of action on October 25, 2010, under previous case

number MCA 86-2099RV, seeking (1) an order to show cause directing the Calhoun

County Board of Commissioners to show cause as to why no action was taken on a

1996 referendum in favor of reinstating at-large elections; and (2) a writ of mandamus

directing the Calhoun County Board of Commissioners to comply with the 1996

referendum. (Doc. 1).

Plaintiff has essentially sought to intervene in the previous case (MCA 86-

2099RV). In that case, the Calhoun County Board of Commissioners was sued by

Case 5:10-cv-00277-RS-GRJ Document 9 Filed 08/23/11 Page 1 of 6
Page 2 of 6

Carlton Smith, seeking to establish single member districts to overcome an alleged

pattern of discrimination in the election system. A companion suit was brought against

the Calhoun County School Board. The parties entered into a consent judgment

acknowledging Plaintiff’s claims and establishing single member districts in the

elections for the County Commissioner and School Board Representatives. No appeal

was taken of that matter. This Court retained jurisdiction to enforce the judgment for a

period of not less than five years. (Doc. 6). In 1996, following a citizen petition drive,

an election was held pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 124.011(10), to determine if the citizens

favored a return to at-large elections. The electors of Calhoun County voted in favor of

the proposition, but no action was taken by the Board of County Commissioners to

enforce the results of the election. (Docs. 1, 6). 

Petitioner appears to request that this Court vacate its previous order and direct

the Calhoun County Board to revert to at-large elections pursuant to the 1996

referendum.

II. DISCUSSION

In order for a party to seek relief from a federal court, it must have standing to

pursue its claims. Intervening parties, however, may be permitted to “piggyback” upon

the standing of original parties to satisfy the standing requirement. Intervenors,

however, “must show independent standing to continue a suit if the original parties on

whose behalf intervention was sought settle or otherwise do not remain adverse parties

in the litigation.” Dillard v. Chilton County Commission, 495 F.3d 1324, 1330 (11 Cir. th

2007). “Piggyback” standing also requires the existence of an Article III case or

controversy at the time intervention is sought. Id.

Case No: 5:10-cv-277-RS-GRJ

Case 5:10-cv-00277-RS-GRJ Document 9 Filed 08/23/11 Page 2 of 6
Page 3 of 6

A. Petitioner lacks independent standing

Subject matter jurisdiction of federal courts is limited by the U.S. Constitution to

“cases” and “controversies” U.S. const. Art. III, § 2. A justiciable controversy “must be

definite and concrete, touching the legal relations of parties having adverse legal

interests. It must be a real and substantial controversy admitting of specific relief

through a decree of a conclusive character, as distinguished from an opinion advising

what the law would be upon a hypothetical state of facts.” Aetna Life Ins. Co. of

Hartford, Connecticut v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227, 240-41 (1937) (citations omitted).

“[T]he core component of standing is an essential and unchanging part of the case-orcontroversy requirement of Article III.” Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555,

560 (1992). Plaintiffs invoking federal court jurisdiction must show “(1) an injury in fact,

meaning an injury that is concrete and particularized, and actual or imminent, (2) a

causal connection between the injury and the causal conduct, and (3) a likelihood that

the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.” Tanner Adver. Group v. Fayette

County, 451 F.3d 777, 791 (11 Cir. 2006). 

th

“[A] plaintiff raising only a generally available grievance about government –

claiming only harm to his and every citizen’s interest in proper application of the

Constitution and its laws, and seeking relief that no more directly and tangibly benefits

him than it does the public at large – does not state an Article III case or controversy.” 

Hein v. Freedom From Religion Found., Inc., 127 S. Ct. 2553, 2563-64 (citing Lujan,

504 U.S. at 573-74). The U.S. Supreme Court in Lance v. Coffman, 549 U.S. 437

(2007), addressed the issue of standing where voter plaintiffs challenged a courtordered voting plan. The Court unanimously held that the plaintiffs did not have

Case No: 5:10-cv-277-RS-GRJ

Case 5:10-cv-00277-RS-GRJ Document 9 Filed 08/23/11 Page 3 of 6
Page 4 of 6

standing because “[t]he only injury plaintiffs allege is that the law. . .has not been

followed. This injury is precisely the kind of undifferentiated, generalized grievance

about the conduct of government that we have refused to countenance in the past.” 

Lance, 549 U.S. at 1198.

The generalized grievances asserted by Petitioner in this case do not assert a

concrete and personalized injury, and accordingly he lacks Article III standing

independent of the original parties to this action.

B. Petitioner cannot piggyback on the standing of the original parties

If a party seeking to intervene in an action cannot establish independent

standing – as Petitioner has failed to do so in this case -- he may be able to proceed

by “piggybacking” upon the standing of the original parties. Dillard, 495 F.3d at 1336.

To do so requires an ongoing case or controversy among the original parties when the

attempt at intervention was made. Id. Furthermore, “when the original parties have

settled the claims between them and the intervenor wishes to challenge the settlement,

we have required the intervenor to have independent standing.” Id. (citing Cox Cable

Commc’ns, Inc. v. United States, 992 F. 2d 1178, 1181 (11 Cir. 1993) (requiring th

intervenor to demonstrate standing to appeal entry of permanent injunction settling

claims between original parties).

Here, there are no unsettled adverse claims between the original parties. The

settlement by entry of the consent judgment marked the end of the adversarial

character of the original controversy between Carlton Smith and the Calhoun County

Board of Commissioners. That decree has remained in effect for approximately 25

years and this Court maintains jurisdiction over that decree for purposes of

Case No: 5:10-cv-277-RS-GRJ

Case 5:10-cv-00277-RS-GRJ Document 9 Filed 08/23/11 Page 4 of 6
Page 5 of 6

enforcement. “Neither the mere existence of a consent decree nor the continuation of

the district court’s jurisdiction for enforcement purposes is enough to support piggyback

standing absent an existing dispute between the original parties for which they seek a

judicial resolution.” Id. At the time Petitioner initiated his claim, there was no ongoing

controversy between the original parties, and therefore Petitioner cannot maintain

“piggyback” standing.

 III. CONCLUSION

Petitioner is unable to establish independent standing under Lance v. Coffman

because he presents only generalized grievances, seeking to force the County

Commission to follow a 1996 referendum in contravention of this Court’s prior consent

decree. Petitioner is unable to establish “piggyback” standing based on an ongoing

legal claim because there was no extant dispute between the original parties at the time

Petitioner initiated this suit. Because Petitioner lacks standing this Court lacks subject

matter jurisdiction over the claim and it should be dismissed.

Accordingly, upon due consideration, it is:

Respectfully RECOMMENDED that Respondent Calhoun County’s Motion to

Dismiss (Doc. 6) should be GRANTED and this case should be dismissed.

IN CHAMBERS at Gainesville, Florida this 23 day of August, 2011. 

rd

s/Gary R. Jones 

GARY R. JONES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case No: 5:10-cv-277-RS-GRJ

Case 5:10-cv-00277-RS-GRJ Document 9 Filed 08/23/11 Page 5 of 6
Page 6 of 6

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2), a party may file specific, written objections to

the proposed findings and recommendations within 14 days after being served with a

copy of this report and recommendation. A party may respond to another party’s

objections within 14 days after being served with a copy thereof. Failure to file specific

objections limits the scope of review of proposed factual findings and

recommendations.

Case No: 5:10-cv-277-RS-GRJ

Case 5:10-cv-00277-RS-GRJ Document 9 Filed 08/23/11 Page 6 of 6