### FI LED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT J uly 15, 20 04 THO MAS K. KAH N CL ERK

Ho no ra ble Ric ha rd Mil ls, Un ite d St ate s D ist ri c t Judg e of

the Ce ntr a l D ist

ri c t of I lli no is, * sitti ngby desig nation. [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ N o. 03- 1469 0

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ D . C. D oc ke t N o. 01- 1070 -C V -J -2 1- T JC NATIONAL ALLIANCE FOR THE MENT ALLY ILL , ST. JOHNS INC., a n ot -fo r-p ro fit Flo rid a co rp or at io n, NAMI FLORIDA, INC.-J ACKSONVILLE, , A.A., B.B., C.C., all na tu ral pe rs on s an d re si de nt s o f St . Jo hn s C ou nt y , SEAN O ’H EA R N , ar e s i d e n to f

S t . J o h n s C o u n ty, Pl ai nti ff s- Appe llants , ve rs us BOARD OF COUNTY COMMI SSIONERS OF S T. JOHNS COUNTY, De fendant-Appellee.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the Mi ddl e D istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ (J ul y 15 , 200 4) Before TJO FL AT and HI LL , C ircuit Judg es, and MILL S , D istrict Judg e. *2

RICH ARD MIL LS , D istrict Judg e: I. BACK GROUND Th i s ca s e c en t er s o nAp p el l ee Bo ar do f C o u n ty Co m m i s s i o n er s o f S t . J o h n ’s County(the “ Board”) decision no t to fund what would have been the first m ental he al th r es ide nti al tr eatm en t f ac ili ty ( “ RT F” ) in S t. Joh ns C ounty , F lor ida . T he RTF wo ul d h av e b een lo cat edat 3 8 Are nt a St reetin St. Au gu st in e, Fl or id a. On April 18, 2000, the Boar d heard public comm ent on the prop osed Arenta S treet fa ci lity and c onsi de re d vari ous park ing , f ir e co de , and tra ff

ic iss ue s pr ior

to its d e c i s i o n . Th e B o ar ds ub s e qu e n t l y v o t e da g a i n s tl e a s i n g o r f u n d i n g th e f

a c i l i ty. O n S ep te m

be r 19, 200 1, S ean O ’ H earnand A . A . ( tw o m en ta lly il l r es ide nts of St. Johns County ), along with A. A. ’ s parents B. B. and C.C ., the National Alliance f

or the Mentally

Ill, St. John ’ s Inc. (“

NA MI-S t. Johns”), and the National Alliance f

or the Mentally

Ill, Florida, I nc.- Jacksonv ille (“ NA MI-Jax”) (c oll ec tiv el y

“ the Appe llants ”) sue d th e Bo ar d. A m ong oth er thi ngs, the Appe llants a lle ge d th at

the Bo ar d’ s de ci sio n no t t o f und the A re nta

S tr ee t f ac ili ty vio late d th e Fa ir

H ousi ng A ct

( “ FH A ”) , § 36 01, e t se q. , the Re habil itatio n A ct of 1973 , 29 U . S. C. § 70 1, e t se q. , the A m er ic an s W ithD isa bil iti es A ct

( “ A D A ”) , 42 U . S. C. § 12 131. e t se q. , and the ir F ourte en th A m en dm en t r igh t t o du e pr oc es s and equa l pr ote ct ion , U . S. CO N ST . a m en d X IV , § 2.3

T he Bo ar d m ove d f

or sum m ar y j udgm en t onthe Appe llants ’ c la im s and, on Augus t 14 , 200 3, H on. W ay ne E . A lle y , U . S. D istri ct Jud ge , Mi ddl e D istri ct

of Fl or ida , e nte re d ase ve nty -s ix p ag e sum m ar y j udgm en t or de r dis m iss ing the Appellants’ case. T he district court determ ined that the Appellants lacked standi ng t o su e an d f

ai le d to e sta

bli sh v iol at ion s of

the F H A , the Re habil itatio n A ct , the A D A , and the F ourte en th A m en dm en t. T he Appe llants ti m el y

appe al ed the dis tr ic t c our

t’ s de ci sio n. II. ST AN DA RD OF RE VIEW T he Co urt r ev ie w s asum m ar y j udgm en t r

uli ng d e novo , “ vie w [i ng] the ev ide nc e an d a ll fa ct

ua l i nf er en ce s th er ef

ro m in the li ght

m ost f av or ab le to the party opp osi ng the m oti on. ” S ee Burt on v . Ci ty of Be lle G la de , 178 F . 3d 1 175, 1186 -87 (11th Cir.1999). Asumm ary j udgm ent m otion shoul d be granted when

“ th e p le ad in gs , dep os it io ns , ans wers to in te rro ga to rie s, an d a dm is si on s o n fi le , tog ethe r w iththe a ff

idavit s, if any , sho wthat the re is no g enuin e iss ue a s to any m at er ia l f ac t and tha t the m ovi ng p ar ty is en tit le d to aj udgm en t a s am atte r of law. ” Fe d.R. Civ.P. 56(c). III . A N A LY SI S Article III of the U nited States Constitu tion lim its the power of f ederal co urts t o a dj udi catin g a ct ua l “ ca se s” and “ co ntr ove rs ie s. ” U . S. Co nst . art . I II , § 2,4

cl . 1. T he m ost

sig nif ic an t c as e- or -c ontro ve rs y doc tr ine is the r equir em en t of standi ng. S ee G eo rg iaS tate Co nf er en ce of N A A CP Br an ch es v. Co x, 183 F . 3d 1259 , 126 2 ( 11th C ir . 1999 ). “ Ine sse nc e the que sti on o f standi ng i s whe the r the litigantis entitled to h ave the court decide the m erits of the dispute or of particular iss ue s. ” W ar

th v . S el din , 422 U . S. 490 , 498 , 95 S . Ct . 219 7, 45 L . E d. 2d 3 43 (1975). The par ty who invokes federal j urisdictio n m ust establis h that it has standi ng t o a sse rt

it s c la im . S ee L uj anv. D ef en de rs of W ild lif e, 504 U . S. 555 , 561 (1 992) . T he re are a t l ea st thr ee dis tin ct f orm s of standi ng: ta xpay er

standi ng indiv idual stand ing, and organizational stand ing. See W om en’ s Em ergency N etw ork v. Bu sh, 323 F . 3d 9 37, 943 ( 11th C ir . 200 3) (c iti ng D or em us v . Bd . of Educ. of H aw thorne, 342 U. S. 429, 434, 72 S.C t. 394, 397, 96 L .E d. 475 (1952), L uj anv. D ef

en de rs of W ild lif e, 504 U . S. 555 , 560 , 112 S . Ct . 213 0, 213 6, 119 L . E d. 2d 3 51 ( 1992 ), H av en s R ea lty Co rp . v. Co le m an , 455 U . S. 363 , 378 -7 9, 102 S. Ct . 111 4, 112 4, 71 L . E d. 2d 2 14 ( 1982 )) . T o e sta bli sh s tandi ng unde r any

one of the se , aparty

m ust “ de m onstrate that he ha s su ff er ed ‘ inj ur y in fa ct , ’ that the inj ur y is ‘ fa ir ly tr ac ea ble ’ to the a ct ion s of

the de fe ndant, and tha t the inj ur y w ill lik el y be r edre sse d by

af av or ab le de ci sio n. ” S ee Be nne tt v. S pe ar , 520 U . S. 154 , 162, 117 S . Ct . 115 4, 137 L . E d. 2d 2 81 ( 1997 ) (i nte rn al quo tatio n m ar ks and5

citations om itted). Si nc e the Appe llants ini tiate d th is s uit , the y have the bur de n of

e sta bli shi ng that the Appe lle es inj ur ed the m via avio latio n of

the F H A , the A D A , the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, or the Fourteenth Am endm ent. T o establish an injury under any one of these, the Appellants h ad to show that the Appellees im plem ented or enforce d hou sing p olicies against th em in a discrim inatory m anner. See 42 U. S. C.A . § 3604(f), 42 U. S. C.A . § 12132, 29 U. S. C. § 701 , U .S . CO N ST . a m en d X IV , § 2. A s su ch , Appe llants O ’ H earnand A . A . w oul d have to show that they

we re qualified to live in a group ho m e, sough t to do so , and were im pe rm iss ibl y

r ej ec te d by

the Bo ar d. At best, O’ He arn asserts that he m igh t h a v e o p t e dt o l i v e i nag r o up h o me had he been given th e opportun ity to do so and A. A. asserts that he m igh t be a candi da te f

or gr oup hom e liv ing if

his sit ua tio n w er e to c hange suc h th at he c oul d no lon ger live by

him self. A ssertions abo ut what m ight h appen do no t establish an inj ur y that i s “ co nc re te and p ar tic ulari ze d. ” S ee L uj an , 504 U . S. a t 56 0, 112 S . Ct . at 213 6. T hus, O ’ H earnand A . A . la ck standi ng. A. A. ’ s lack of standing m eans that Appellants B.B . and C.C. also lack standin g. S ince the Board never deprived B.B. or C. C. of any of their rights, B. B. and C.C . c ouldonly

have standing as third-party litigants . In Singleton v. Wulff,T h e p ar t i e s g av e v e r

y l i tt l e att e n t i o nt o th i s i s s u e o ns um m ar y j u d g m e n t . C o n s e qu e n t l y, 1 the district court did not rea ch any conclusion on the matter .

6 428 U.S . 106, 96 S. Ct. 2868 , 49 L .E d.2d 826 (197 6), the S uprem e Court re co gni ze d th e ri ght

of li tig an ts t o br ing a ct ion s onbe ha lf of thi rd part ie s so lon g as th ree c rit eri a are sat is fie d. Th e li ti ga ntm us t h av e su ffer edan “ in

jury in fa ct ,” that gi ve s hi m

or he r a “ suf

fi ci en tly c onc re te int er es t” in the out co m e of the dis put e; the li tig an t m

ust have ac los e re latio n to the thi rd party ; and the re m

ust ex is t s om e h in dr an ce t o t he th irdpa rty’ s ab il it y to pro te cthi s o r he r own in te res ts . Id. at 112-11 6, 96 S. Ct., at 2873-28 75. Bec ause A. A. has not su ffer ed an “ injury in f ac t, ” B. B. and C . C. c annot e sta bli sh thir d- party

standi ng. S ee id. N A MI S t. Joh ns and N A MI -J ax , the tw o a sso ci at ion s who s ue d th e Bo ar d, fair no better with respect to standing. N AMI St. Johns and NA MI-Jax asser t that the y have standi ng t o su e ba se d onthe inj ur y the y suf fe re d a s ar es ult

of the Bo ar d’ s de ci sio n no t t o f

und the A re nta

S tr ee t pr oj ec t. A cc or din g to the m , the 1 Board’ s decision frustrated their agenda and wa sted their “ econom ic and hum an re sour ce s. ” N A MI -S t. Joh ns and N A MI -J ax c ont en d th at thi s is e noug h to giv e them standing pursuant to Havens. Id. 455 U.S . at 378-79 , 102 S. Ct. at 1124 (an advoc ac y gr oup’ s a lle ge d lo ss o f re sour ce s c anbe suf fi ci en t t o e sta

bli sh i nj ur

y in fact) .7

The problem

with N AMI -St. Johns and NA MI-Jax’ s argum ent is that they fa il to p ro vid e any

de ta ils about

the ir los t r es our ce s. F ed er al Ru le of Appe llate Procedure 28(a)(9)( A) requires an appellant to cite “parts of the rec ord on which ap pe llant r el ie s” f

or his c la im . S ee id. N A MI -S t. Johns and N A MI -J ax c ite noth ing in the rec ord that sho ws they lost resources. The C ourt has war ned lit igants that “ fa ilure to co m ply w ithRu le 28( a) (9 )( A ) of the F ed er al Ru le s of Appellate P rocedure m ay result in waiver

or abandonm ent of issues on appeal.” See Mendoza v. United States Atty . G en., 327 F.3d 1283 , 1286 FN4. (11th Cir. 2003 )( ci tin g, F lanig an ’ s E nte rs . , I nc . of G a. v. F ult on C ounty , 242 F . 3d 9 76, 987 n. 16 ( 11th C ir . 2001 ), c er t. de nie d, 536 U . S. 904 , 122 S . Ct . 235 6, 153 L . E d. 2d 1 78 (2 002) ). B ec au se N A MI -S t. Joh ns and N A MI -J ax have not satis fi ed Ru le 28( a) (9 )( A ), the Co urt de em s th em to have w ai ve d any

c la im c onc er nin g th ei r ind ivi dua l st an din g. Alter natively , N AMI -St Johns and NAMI -Jax claim they have associational standin g. “ An association has standi ng to b ring suiton behalf of its m em bers w he n it s m em

be rs w oul d othe rw ise have standi ng t o su e in the ir own r igh t, the int er es ts at st ak e ar e ge rm an e to the or ganiz at ion ’ s purp ose , and n ei the r the c la im asserted nor the relief

requested requires the participation of indivi dual m em bers in the lawsuit.” Friends of the E arth, Inc. v. L aidlaw E nvironm ental Ser vices8

(T O C) , I nc . , 528 U . S. 167 , 120 S . Ct . 693 , 704 , 145 L . E d. 2d 6 10 ( 2000 ) (c iti ng H unt v. W as hin gto n S tate Appl e A dve r. Co m m ’ n, 432 U . S. 333 , 343 , 97 S . Ct . 2434 , 2441, 53 L. Ed. 2d 38 3 (1977)). Unfortunately

for N AMI -St. Johns and NA MI-Jax, they have not sho wn that an y o f t h ei r mem

b er s h ads t an d i n g t o s u e. Th e o n l y co n s t i tu en t s NAM I- St . J o h n ’s and NA MI-Jax m ention in their brief are O’ He arn and A .A ., and neither of them has been injured. N AMI -St. Johns and NA MI-Jax blam e their fa ilure to identify any other injure d constit uents on the Board. A ccording to th em , the B oard had sole pos session of the identities of indi vidu al patients. T he district court analy zed thi s a sse rt ionand c or

re ct ly r ej ec te d it . A s th e dis tr ic t c ourt e xpl ai ne d, the Bo ar d pr ovi de d N A MI -S t Jo hns an d N A MI -J ax w ithinf

orm at ionpe rt ai nin g to pe rs ons w ho w er e el igi ble f or tr eatm en t w he n it te nde re d di sc ove ry

m at er ia ls f

ro m the dir ec tor

of the Me nta l H ea lth D ep ar tm en t, D r. K enne th R obe rt son. N A MI -S t Jo hns an d N A MI -J ax c oul d have use d th ose m at er ia ls t o a sc er ta in the ide nti tie s of

inj ur ed c onst itu en ts. T he y

did not do s o. N A MI -S t Jo hns an d N A MI -J ax f ai lur e to i de nti fy

an in j ur ed c onst itu en t prevents them

from asserting association al standing . See Ar izonans for Of ficial E ngl ishv. A ri zo na , 520 U . S. 43, 66, 117 S . Ct . 105 5, 106 8, 137 L . E d. 2d 1 70 (1997)(“ An association has standi ng to su e or defe nd in su ch capacity , how ever,9

onlyif its m em

bers would have standing in their own right.”) (citations om itted)); D oe v. S tin ce r, 175 F . 3d 8 79, 886 ( 11th C ir . 199 9) (the r igh t of an a sso ci at ionto sue on behalf of its const ituents d oes not relieve it of its obli gation to show that one of its consti tuents ot herw ise had standin g to sue). IV. CO NC LUS ION For these re asons, we AFFIRM the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s de ci sio n to dis m iss f or la ck of standi ng.