Opinion ID: 773559
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Past Exposure to Sanctions

Text: As an initial matter, the mere fact that Grendell was previously sanctioned by the Ohio Supreme Court in State of Ohio ex rel. Grendell is not an adequate injury in fact to confer standing for declaratory and injunctive relief. As the Supreme Court has noted, past exposure to illegal conduct does not in itself show a present case or controversy regarding injunctive relief . . . if unaccompanied by any continuing, present adverse effects. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102 (1983). Indeed, prior precedent establishes that where a state court has issued sanctions pursuant to a civil contempt proceeding, only those litigants still under the influence of those penalties have standing. See Judice v. Vail, 430 U.S. 327, 332-33 (1977) (once the period of incarceration is served or the fine paid, the effect of the orders imposing a fine or commitment has expended itself, and the party lacks standing to seek injunctive relief). As the sanctions imposed by the Ohio Supreme Court have already been perfected by State of Ohio ex rel. Grendell, this past injury has no continuing, present adverse effects and cannot establish standing for declaratory and injunctive relief. Previous sanctions might be evidence bearing on whether there is a real and immediate threat of repeated injury.Lyons, 461 U.S. at 102. However, where the threat of repeated injury is speculative or tenuous, there is no standing to seek injunctive relief. See id. at 109, 103 S. Ct. 1660. For example, in Lyons, the plaintiff brought an action seeking to enjoin the Los Angeles Police Department (L.A.P.D.) from using a choke-hold during arrests that had caused several deaths. See id. at 97-98, 100. Though the L.A.P.D. had previously used the choke-hold against the plaintiff in that case, the Supreme Court held that the future threat of injury was still too speculative to confer standing for injunctive relief. The Supreme Court reasoned: That Lyons may have been illegally choked by the police . . . while presumably affording Lyons standing to claim damages against the individual officers and perhaps against the City, does nothing to establish a real and immediate threat that he would again be stopped for a traffic violation, or for any other offense, by an officer or officers who would illegally choke him into unconsciousness without any provocation . . . . Id. at 105, 103 S. Ct. 1660. Similarly, in Ashcroft v. Mattis, 431 U.S. 171 (1977), the father of a boy who was killed while fleeing the police sought a declaration that a state statute which authorized police to use deadly force in apprehending a person who committed a felony was unconstitutional. See id. at 171 n. 1, 97 S. CT. 1739. In arguing that he had standing, the father alleged that he had another son who if ever arrested or brought under an attempt to arrest on suspicion of a felony, might flee or give the appearance of fleeing, and would therefore be in danger of being killed by these defendants or other police officers . . . . Id. at 172 n. 2, 97 S. Ct. 1739. Accordingly, the Supreme Court found the threat of future injury too speculative to confer standing. See id.at 173 n. 2, 97 S. Ct. 1739. Given this precedent, Grendell has not established sufficient injury in fact to seek declaratory and injunctive relief to enjoin the alleged illegal application of Rule XIV, §5. In other words, Grendell has failed to show that he is subject to actual present harm or a significant possibility of future harm in order to seek the requested declaratory and injunctive relief. Nat'l Rifle Assoc. of Am., 132 F.3d at 279. As with the plaintiffs in Lyons and Ashcroft, the threat of Grendell's future injury is highly conjectural, resting on a string of actions the occurrence of which is merely speculative. In short, to show a palpable threat of future injury necessary to achieve standing for declaratory and injunctive relief, Grendell must present evidence establishing: (1) that he is bringing or highly likely to bring a lawsuit before the Ohio Supreme Court; (2) that such lawsuit is allegedly frivolous, exposing him to sanctions under Rule XIV, § 5; (3) that the Ohio Supreme Court would, in its discretion, impose such sanctions; and (4) that the imposition of those sanctions would violate due process. Such a chain of events is simply too attenuated to establish injury in fact, and to confer the required standing in this case.