Opinion ID: 59104
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Due Process Violation Claim

Text: Regarding Dr. Orban’s claim that the City violated her due process rights, we agree with the district court that Dr. Orban lacks standing to pursue a generalized claim against the City of Tampa for the City’s allegedly utilizing an illegal scheme to issue and enforce traffic citations. Article III of the Constitution requires plaintiffs to have “an actual case or controversy” before they may invoke the jurisdiction of the federal courts. City of L.A. v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 101, 103 S. Ct. 1660, 1665 (1983). To satisfy this requirement, 6 [p]laintiffs must demonstrate a personal stake in the outcome in order to assure that concrete adverseness sharpens the presentation of issues necessary for the proper resolution of constitutional questions. Abstract injury is not enough. The plaintiff must show that he has sustained or is immediately in danger or sustaining some direct injury as the result of the challenged official conduct and the injury or threat must be both real and immediate, not conjectural or hypothetical. Id. (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). To the extent Dr. Orban requests retrospective relief for the City’s alleged scheme, she has not sufficiently demonstrated that she personally suffered a violation of her constitutional rights. Notwithstanding any alleged policy on the part of the City, the TPD officers who issued Dr. Orban’s citation possessed probable cause, as discussed above. Furthermore, although Dr. Orban alleges that the traffic court convicted her on the strength of inadmissible evidence in the form of the TPD officers’ ex parte submission of a long-form accident report, which included hearsay and false information, any such error on the part of the traffic court can be remedied, and in fact was remedied, on direct appeal of the judge’s decision. To the extent Dr. Orban requests prospective relief against the City’s alleged illegal scheme, she lacks standing because even if she had established a violation of her constitutional rights, she nevertheless failed to demonstrate a sufficient likelihood that she will be wronged again in a similar way. Federal 7 courts may not grant prospective relief against state officers solely on the basis of a speculative claim of future injury. Lyons, 461 U.S. at 111, 103 S. Ct. at 1670. “[P]ast wrongs do not in themselves amount to that real and immediate threat of injury necessary to make out a case or controversy.” Id. at 103, 103 S. Ct. at 1666. Thus, although the plaintiff in Lyons had been subjected to an illegal chokehold, he lacked standing to enjoin the Los Angeles police from similar action in the future. Id. at 111-13, 103 S. Ct. at 1669-71. As the Lyons Court explained: Absent a sufficient likelihood that he will again be wronged in a similar way, Lyons is no more entitled to an injunction than any other citizen of Los Angeles; and a federal court may not entertain a claim by any or all citizens who no more than assert that certain practices of law enforcement officers are unconstitutional. Id. at 111, 103 S. Ct. 1670. Dr. Orban’s assertion that in the future she may be issued a ticket without probable cause does not create an actual case or controversy. Even as alleged by Dr. Orban, TPD’s policy does not mandate that TPD officers issue a citation whenever they respond to an accident; rather, TPD officers may seek a supervisor’s approval to forego issuing a citation if a citation would be inappropriate under the circumstances. Thus, even assuming Dr. Orban will have another accident, and assuming TPD officers will respond to the scene, it remains uncertain that Dr. Orban would receive a citation if probable cause is lacking. Dr. 8 Orban is no more entitled to prospective relief than any other citizen of Tampa, and her undifferentiated, speculative claim cannot sustain federal jurisdiction. The district court thus properly dismissed Dr. Orban’s due process claim for lack of standing. Accordingly, the district court is AFFIRMED.4 4 Dr. Orban’s request for oral argument is DENIED. 9