Court Opinion

ID: 9915815
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-08 18:01:05.895024+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:20:21.097779
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-11738    Document: 17-1     Date Filed: 01/08/2024   Page: 1 of 4

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                   In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                          ____________________

                                No. 23-11738
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       BRIAN D. SWANSON,
                                                     Plaintiﬀ-Appellant,
       versus
       SECRETARY OF STATE, STATE OF GEORGIA,

                                                   Defendant-Appellee.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                    for the Southern District of Georgia
                  D.C. Docket No. 1:22-cv-00152-JRH-BKE
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-11738       Document: 17-1      Date Filed: 01/08/2024      Page: 2 of 4

       2                       Opinion of the Court                   23-11738

       Before WILSON, LUCK, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Brian D. Swanson, proceeding pro se, appeals the dismissal
       of his suit against the Georgia Secretary of State (Secretary),
       alleging that the 2022 United States Senate runoff election in
       Georgia was unconstitutional because the Seventeenth
       Amendment to the United States Constitution does not apply in
       Georgia.
              “We review standing determinations de novo.” Tanner
       Advert. Grp., L.L.C. v. Fayette Cnty., 451 F.3d 777, 784 (11th Cir. 2006)
       (en banc). When plaintiffs lack Article III standing, “we lack
       jurisdiction to consider the merits of their claims.” Gardner v. Mutz,
       962 F.3d 1329, 1344 (11th Cir. 2020).
               A plaintiff who invokes the jurisdiction of a federal court
       bears the burden to show the Constitutional limitations on
       standing: (1) an injury in fact, (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 Advert. Grp.,
       L.L.C., 451 F.3d at 791. “An injury in fact consists of an invasion of
       a legally protected interest that is both concrete and particularized
       and actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.” Trichell
       v. Midland Credit Mgmt., Inc., 964 F.3d 990, 996 (11th Cir. 2020)
       (quotation marks omitted). “A concrete injury must be de facto;
       that is, it must actually exist, as opposed to being hypothetical or
       speculative.” Salcedo v. Hanna, 936 F.3d 1162, 1167 (11th Cir. 2019)
USCA11 Case: 23-11738      Document: 17-1      Date Filed: 01/08/2024     Page: 3 of 4

       23-11738               Opinion of the Court                          3

       (quotation marks omitted). A “particularized” injury must affect
       the plaintiff in a personal and individual way; the injury must be
       “distinct from a generally available grievance about government.”
       Gill v. Whitford, 138 S. Ct. 1916, 1923 (2018).
              Here, Swanson claims he was “issued an illegal ballot”
       authorized by the Secretary, which could subject him to criminal
       prosecution for casting a “potentially illegal vote” in violation of 52
       U.S.C. § 10307(c). Swanson further states he could be penalized in
       the form of a $10,000 fine and up to five years of imprisonment
       “due to the [Defendant]’s illegal actions.” Swanson urges us to
       recognize that the runoff election was unconstitutional, and that
       he indeed has a “concrete and particularized injury traceable to the
       [Defendant]”—namely, the possibility of a fine and imprisonment
       for violating 52 U.S.C. § 10307(c). This simply cannot be so.
              The district court did not err in concluding that Swanson
       lacked standing because he failed to show that he suffered an injury
       in fact. Swanson’s allegation that the runoff election was
       unconstitutional amounts to nothing more than a generalized
       grievance against the government; he cannot describe how his
       desire to defend the Constitution differs from any of his fellow
       citizens. Even assuming arguendo the runoff election was
       unconstitutional and Swanson could face prosecution as a result of
       participating, Swanson has not described how the possible criminal
       prosecution is a grievance undifferentiated from everyone else
       who voted in the election. In sum, Swanson’s alleged injuries do
USCA11 Case: 23-11738    Document: 17-1     Date Filed: 01/08/2024   Page: 4 of 4

       4                    Opinion of the Court               23-11738

       not create standing because the alleged injuries are not concrete
       and particularized.
             Because Swanson lacks standing, we lack jurisdiction to
       address issues surrounding the merits of his complaint.
       Accordingly, we affirm.
             AFFIRMED.