Opinion ID: 164039
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Claims Dismissed For Want of Standing

Text: 29 In its First Order, the district court raised sua sponte the question of whether Plaintiffs had standing to pursue claims for declaratory relief. These claims were subsequently dismissed for lack of standing. Neither party has addressed standing on this appeal. 30 Standing, however, raises jurisdictional questions and we are required to consider the issue sua sponte to ensure that there is an Article III case or controversy before us. See People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals v. Rasmussen, 298 F.3d 1198, 1202 (10th Cir.2002). Standing has both constitutional and prudential dimensions. Bd. of County Comm'rs v. Geringer, 297 F.3d 1108, 1111 (10th Cir.2002) (citing Sac & Fox Nation v. Pierce, 213 F.3d 566, 573 (10th Cir. 2000)). 31 To satisfy constitutional standing requirements, a plaintiff must demonstrate the presence of three elements: (1) injury in fact — meaning the invasion of a legally protected interest that is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; (2) a causal relationship between the injury and the challenged conduct — meaning that the injury can fairly be traced to the action of the defendant; and (3) a likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision — meaning that the prospect of obtaining relief from ... a favorable ruling is not too speculative. 32 Geringer, 297 F.3d at 1111 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). Additionally, [t]he party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing these elements. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992) (citations omitted).
33 We begin by addressing whether the named representatives, Mrs. Rector and Mr. Spencer, have standing to pursue their central claim. Plaintiffs argue that due process is violated because the parking tickets erroneously lead recipients to believe that the late fee is imposed whenever the ticket is paid outside the twenty-day window, even if the ticket is formally contested on a timely basis. In actuality, as long as the recipient appears before the parking referee within twenty days, the late fee is not imposed. Plaintiffs complain that the ticket's categorical language pressures recipients to pay rather than challenge the ticket. They claim that this misapprehension constitutes a due process violation because it restricts a putative violator's opportunity to be heard and to present objections. 34 At the very least, parties bringing a lawsuit must have suffered injury that is fairly traceable to the violation for which they seek redress. In the context of misleading parking tickets, this requires the putative violator to have: (i) received a parking ticket, (ii) been misled about the late fee, (iii) chosen not to contest the ticket for fear that the late fee would be assessed, and (iv) paid the ticket. Cf. Herrada, 275 F.3d at 558 (parking ticket recipient who elected to pay the fine rather than request a hearing has no standing to argue that hearings are not properly held). 35 Each of these elements is necessary to establish standing. If no ticket was issued, no injury can result from its misleading instructions. If the plaintiff was not misled, he could suffer no damage. And unless the plaintiff's decision not to contest the ticket is attributable to the misleading instructions, there is no connection between the alleged constitutional violation and the injury. It would seem to follow that the third requirement — a causal connection between the alleged due process violation and the recipient's failure to appeal — cannot be satisfied unless the recipient asserts that he has or had some basis for contesting the ticket. 36 The Supreme Court has held that standing considerations are an indispensable part of the plaintiff's case, and that each element [required for standing] must be supported in the same way as any other matter on which the plaintiff bears the burden of proof, i.e., with the manner and degree of evidence required at the successive stages of the litigation. Lujan, 504 U.S. at 561, 112 S.Ct. 2130. Thus, [w]hen the procedural posture of the case is a ... motion for summary judgment and plaintiffs' standing is at issue ... a plaintiff must establish that there exists no genuine issue of material fact as to justiciability and mere allegations of injury ... are insufficient. Essence, Inc. v. City of Federal Heights, 285 F.3d 1272, 1280 (2002) (internal quotations marks omitted) (citing Dep't of Commerce v. United States House of Representatives, 525 U.S. 316, 329, 119 S.Ct. 765, 142 L.Ed.2d 797 (1999)). 37 Courts must be cautious in applying Article III standing requirements in procedural due process cases. When asserting procedural rights, Article III standing does not require plaintiffs to demonstrate that they would obtain concrete relief from the desired process. Lujan, 504 U.S. at 573 n. 7, 112 S.Ct. 2130; see also Catron County Bd. of Comm'rs v. United States Fish & Wildlife Serv., 75 F.3d 1429, 1433 (10th Cir.1996) (county had standing under NEPA to sustain action for failure to prepare environmental impact statement even though the Secretary [of Interior] may ultimately make the same decision and designate critical habitat within the same geographical parameters.). Parties may suffer injury in fact from defective procedures even if, at the end of the day, they would not have prevailed on the merits. The Court has observed that the right to procedural due process is `absolute' in the sense that it does not depend upon the merits of a claimant's substantive assertions. Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247, 266, 98 S.Ct. 1042, 55 L.Ed.2d 252 (1978) (citations omitted). In cases where the procedural due process rights of a person have been violated but the outcome was unaffected because the claim was not meritorious, the Court has held that plaintiffs are entitled to nominal damages. Id. 38 On the other hand, the Constitution does not protect procedure for procedure's sake. The Fourteenth Amendment, by its terms, does not guarantee due process; it protects against deprivations of life, liberty, or property without due process. Unless a person asserts some basis for contesting a governmental deprivation of life, liberty, or property, he is not injured by defective procedures he has no occasion to invoke. See Michael H. v. Gerald D., 491 U.S. 110, 127 n. 5, 109 S.Ct. 2333, 105 L.Ed.2d 91 (1989) (plurality opinion) (We cannot grasp the concept of a `right to a hearing' on the part of a person who claims no substantive entitlement that the hearing will assertedly vindicate.). 39 The principle can best be understood by comparing the Supreme Court's holding in Carey with its holding one year earlier in Codd v. Velger, 429 U.S. 624, 97 S.Ct. 882, 51 L.Ed.2d 92 (1977) (per curiam). Carey involved claims of two students who were suspended without due process hearings for violating the school's rules. The students sought to challenge the suspensions but were given no opportunity to do so. The district court dismissed their due process complaint on the basis of its finding that the students were guilty of the infractions and would not have prevailed if a hearing had been held. The Supreme Court concluded that even if the suspensions were justified on the merits, the students' absolute right to procedural due process entitled them to nominal damages even if on remand the court found that the suspensions were fully justified under the school's rules and policies. Carey, 435 U.S. at 266, 98 S.Ct. 1042. 40 Codd involved the dismissal of a police officer and the placement of certain information about an attempted suicide in his personnel file. The Court granted certiorari to determine whether the information was of such a stigmatizing nature as to demand a due process hearing. The Court found it unnecessary to reach that question, however, because [n]owhere in his pleadings or elsewhere has respondent affirmatively asserted that the report of the apparent suicide attempt was substantially false. Codd, 429 U.S. at 627, 97 S.Ct. 882. The Court explained that if the hearing mandated by the Due Process Clause is to serve any useful purpose, there must be some factual dispute between an employer and a discharged employee which has some significant bearing [on the underlying deprivation]. Id. If he does not challenge the substantial truth of the material in question, no hearing would afford a promise of achieving that result for him. Id. at 627-28, 97 S.Ct. 882. 41 The distinction between Codd and Carey lies in adopting an ex ante perspective on the right to due process hearings. The Carey plaintiffs denied the substance of the underlying allegations made against them. See Carey, 435 U.S. at 263 n. 19, 98 S.Ct. 1042. Their injury, viewed ex ante, is that they were denied the opportunity to convince school administrators that they should not be suspended. See id. at 261 n. 16, 98 S.Ct. 1042. Thus while ex post, their loss on the merits precluded any claim for compensatory damages, the denial of the opportunity to sway school officials towards their cause constituted an injury in fact. By contrast, the plaintiff in Codd did not challenge the substantial truth of the damaging material set forth in his file. Even by his own reckoning of the facts, the hearing would not have vindicated any rights. There was nothing for the hearing to accomplish. Codd thus establishes that failure to provide a hearing does not violate due process so long as the claimant does not contest the legitimacy of the underlying deprivation. 42 Our review of the facts in the summary judgment record in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs shows that Mrs. Rector admits she parked in a metered spot and that she did not put any coins in the meter. She does not assert any legal basis for challenging the ticket. The closest she comes to such a claim is her statement that I didn't feel like I was able to dispute the ticket, even though I had some concerns about it. Rector Dep. 30, App. 998. The remainder of her deposition, however, makes clear that Mrs. Rector's concerns were not in the nature of a challenge to the ticket. Mrs. Rector stated that the only reason she was suspicious of the ticket is that she was in a restaurant in view of the street at the time the ticket was given, and did not see anyone in the area giving parking tickets. Rector Dep. 37, App. 999; for a more complete version of this explanation, see id. at 17-19. Later, she elaborated that she was under the impression that the parking meter did not require me to put any money into it after 5:00. She stated that the reason she had this belief is that the last time I received a ticket in Colorado Springs, that's what the rule was. Rector Dep. 21, App. 767. She admitted, however, that she did not even look at the meter to determine its hours of operation. 43 These may have been good reasons for her to be surprised that she received a ticket, but they do not constitute a basis for challenging it. Indeed, when asked, Do you now understand that you parked illegally there?, Mrs. Rector answered, unequivocally, Yes. Id. at 23, App. 997. As a follow-up, counsel asked: Because in Denver, you're required to put coins past 5:00 p.m. in certain areas. You understand that? Answer: I do understand that now. Id. at 24, App. 997. 44 Indeed, Mrs. Rector testified that even at the time she received the ticket, she just said, Oh, I got a parking ticket. And I remember talking to [my husband] about the fact that I thought I didn't need to put any money in the meter after 5:00. And that was about it. I put the ticket in the car and we left. Id. at 40-41, App. 999. She paid the ticket two days later without dispute. She did not testify that, at the time, she believed that her suspicions or impression[s] about the timing of the ticket, or any other concerns, might constitute a basis for challenging the ticket. 45 It is thus undisputed that Mrs. Rector asserted no legal basis for challenging the ticket. Any deficiencies in notice thus caused her no injury, because there was nothing for a hearing to decide. As the Supreme Court stated in Codd, if the hearing mandated by the Due Process Clause is to serve any useful purpose, there must be some factual dispute between the individual and the government agency. 429 U.S. at 627, 97 S.Ct. 882. Even assuming that Denver's parking tickets are misleading in the sense that Plaintiffs have claimed, Mrs. Rector does not have standing to bring the suit and to represent the class, because her injury, the payment of the fine, is fairly traceable not to the allegedly defective notice but to her lack of any legal defense to the parking ticket. 46 Appellant Spencer's central claim is likewise dismissed for want of standing. In both versions of his testimony, Mr. Spencer admits that his car remained parked in a metered spot after the meter had expired, that he paid the ticket after the twenty-day period, and that at the time he had no desire to dispute the ticket. Because Mr. Spencer asserts no basis to challenge the ticket, the notice, even if misleading, was not the cause of his injury.
47 Plaintiffs' lack of standing mandates dismissal of several other due process claims. Plaintiffs assert that: (i) Denver provides no mechanism through which the late fee may be challenged, (ii) the subsequent notices sent by the City fail to meet basic notice requirements, and (iii) the district court erred in conducting its Mathews analysis. We address these claims in order. 48 Because Mrs. Rector was neither assessed, nor did she pay, the late fee, she has no standing to challenge claims addressing the procedures under which the late fee may be contested. With respect to Mr. Spencer, assuming the late fee was assessed and paid, Mr. Spencer testified that the ticket rested in his glove compartment for about a month before it was paid. By his own admission, therefore, Mr. Spencer has no basis to contest the late fee, and thus lacks standing to represent the plaintiff class on this claim. Similarly, with regard to the subsequent notices, Mrs. Rector lacks standing because she promptly paid her ticket and did not receive any of these notices. While Mr. Spencer claims he received such a notice, he makes no allegation that he suffered any injury on account of it. To the contrary, Mr. Spencer asserts that he had already paid the ticket and the late fee when he received the follow-up notice. We therefore dismiss this claim for lack of standing. 49 Plaintiffs' lack of standing also mandates dismissal of their claims challenging the district court's application of the Mathews factors. Mathews provides a framework for determining what procedural protections are due to claimants subjected to a governmental deprivation. However, because Plaintiffs have no standing to contest the alleged due process violation, we have no occasion to review the district court's application of Mathews to these circumstances.
50 Finally, we consider one of Plaintiffs' equal protection claims. 4 Plaintiffs contend that the City's distinction between ticket recipients who contest the citation after twenty days and lose on the merits (who are assessed the late fee), and those who pay their tickets within the twenty-day allotment (who are not charged with a late fee) creates an unreasonable classification and is in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. Because neither Mrs. Rector nor Mr. Spencer contested their parking tickets, they have no standing to raise this claim and we affirm the district court's dismissal. 51 For similar reasons, we affirm the district court's dismissal of Plaintiffs' request for declaratory judgment. Plaintiffs sought a declaration that the City's administration of its parking regime is unconstitutional pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201. It is well established that the Declaratory Judgment Act is remedial and does not itself confer jurisdiction on federal courts, Wyoming v. United States, 279 F.3d 1214, 1225 (10th Cir.2002), and that plaintiffs must establish an Article III case or controversy as a prerequisite for declaratory relief, see Aetna Life Insurance Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227, 239-41, 57 S.Ct. 461, 81 L.Ed. 617 (1937). The abstract possibility that Plaintiffs may receive a contestable parking ticket in the future certainly does not satisfy Article III's requirements.