1 F. Supp. 3d 854
E.D. Tenn.2014Background
- Plaintiff Herbert S. Moncier, a Tennessee attorney, sought to be placed on the August 2014 ballot for an appellate judgeship but did not submit his name to the Judicial Nominating Commission (JNC); Coordinator of Elections Mark Goins denied his request.
- The dispute challenges the Tennessee Plan for selecting/retaining appellate judges (statutory nomination by JNC and gubernatorial appointment to fill vacancies).
- Moncier sued Governor Bill Haslam and Goins seeking declaratory and injunctive relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments (ballot access and political association) and sought broad relief on behalf of himself and “the people of Tennessee.”
- Moncier filed multiple motions to amend, to enjoin appointments, and for temporary injunctive relief; he also sought to add state-law claims and state actors as parties.
- Defendants moved against several filings; the district court held a hearing and reviewed the record, focusing on the threshold issue of standing.
- The court concluded Moncier’s alleged injuries were generalized grievances common to all citizens (denial of the chance to run for appellate judge), and that he lacked both Article III and prudential standing; it dismissed the action and denied all pending motions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Article III standing to challenge Tennessee Plan | Moncier contends he was injured by denial of ballot access and associational rights and seeks relief for himself and Tennesseans | Defendants argue Moncier’s claimed injury is generalized and not particularized; therefore no standing | Court: No Article III standing — injury is generalized, not concrete/particularized |
| Prudential standing / third‑party claims on behalf of "people of Tennessee" | Moncier sues on behalf of the public and seeks broad relief affecting all voters | Defendants: plaintiff cannot assert rights of third parties or generalized grievances | Court: Prudential limits bar his claims on behalf of the public; dismissal affirmed |
| Constitutional right to run or a property right in candidacy | Moncier asserts First and Fourteenth Amendment ballot‑access and association rights; also cites state constitutional remedies | Defendants: No fundamental right to public employment or to run for office; state law does not create federally protected property right | Court: No federal constitutional right to be a candidate or to vote for a particular class of candidates; no cognizable property right |
| Ability to import state causes of action into federal law under § 1988 to confer standing | Moncier argues § 1988 allows borrowing state causes to make federal claim viable | Defendants: § 1988 does not create federal causes of action or standing | Court: Moor controls; § 1988 does not confer standing or create federal causes of action — argument rejected |
Key Cases Cited
- Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490 (standing requires particularized injury)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (injury in fact must be concrete and particularized)
- Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (First Amendment ballot‑access/associational framework)
- Lance v. Coffman, 549 U.S. 437 (no standing for generalized grievance that law was not followed)
- Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (voter standing where plaintiffs allege concrete vote dilution/injury)
- Moor v. Alameda County, 411 U.S. 693 (§ 1988 does not authorize borrowing entire state causes of action to create federal standing)
- Wuliger v. Manufacturers Life Ins. Co., 567 F.3d 787 (articulating Article III and prudential standing elements)