Dean Butch Wilson v. John W. Jones, Jr.

position appellate on review to sort WILSON, Johnny Dean Butch testimony

through conflicting witness Middlebrooks, Plaintiffs- regard intentional discrimi- Appellees, nation claims.” disagree. analysis ignores I This MINOR, Perry Varner, Roy Erskine the district court did make clear and ex- Moore, Williams, Kimbrough Curtis findings tensive factual that Joe’s excluded Ballard, capacity in their official women food servers order to emulate County Commissioners, United experience an Old dining World fine America, Defendants-Appel States of then certain quoted cited evidence and lants. length testimony certain admissions No. 99-11145. management Joe’s amply witnesses that supported factual findings. those The dis- United Appeals, States Court of trict court required its order to Eleventh Circuit. credibility

review and make findings re- Aug. garding part each testimony of each witness. Nor is the district court required

to detail all of the other trial extensive supported findings

evidence that its factual

regarding why all Joe’s had male servers.

Instead, job appeal our is to review the

entire light record evidence most EEOC, must,

favorable as we and to amply

determine whether that evidence

supports findings the extensive factual did make. The record evi- clearly findings

dence does. The actually

district court did make are more support

than sufficient to liability on the ground disparate

alternative treatment.

Thus, unnecessary it is to remand this case

for the district court to resolve further

credibility conflicts. reasons,

For all of these I would affirm

the district liability court’s decision in this

case. Justice, Troth, Ap Dept. K.

Rebecca Div., Sec., Washington, pellate Rights Civil Selma, AL, DC, Defen Boynton, for Bruce dants-Appellants. Jordan, Algert Agrí- L. Swanson

Albert Wallace, Jordan, cola, Jr., Ratliff & AL, Brandt, L.L.C., Birmingham, John J. Al, Park, Jr., Montgomery, Cartledge W. Selma, Blackwell, Jr., Keith, Blackwell & AL, Plaintiffs-Appellees. for CARNES, BARKETT and Before MARCUS, Judges. Circuit MARCUS, Judge: Circuit the Dallas Commis- Defendants officials,1 sion, and the county various Jones, Jr., Judge capacity as Probate official John W. in his 1. The named Defendants are: appeal United States the district court’s sion composed of four commissioners vacating order its elected from at-large residency districts to established a new election scheme2 year terms. Dallas Coun concurrent four of Dallas Ala- ty served, commissioners and continue to remedy bama as a for a serve, violation part-time in a capacity. The Dallas Voting Act. Rights The district County probate judge acted as the chair court found that the injunction 1988 person of the Commission in an ex officio changed County the size of the Commis- capacity.3 probate judge held a full- sion impermissible and was therefore an position time and was elected at-large to remedy for a voting rights light violation in year six In terms. his capacity as the ex of recent Supreme Court Eleventh chairperson Commission, the officio precedent. Circuit Because the district probate judge presided over Commission court clearly did not err in finding but, meetings notably, only in voted the injunction 1988 changed the size the of event of a tie among the four commissione Commission, County and because the law rs.4 See United States v. County Dallas prohibiting changes govern- the size of a Cir.1988). Comm’n, 1430, (11th 850 F.2d 1432 ing body in remedy order to 2 section n his capacity probate as judge, I plain, violation is conclude probate judge also authority district court did not abuse its discretion vote with the Commission in filling certain vacating injunction the 1988 and affirm its local office vacancies. See Act No. 196, order. 227; 197, 1949 Ala. Acts Act No. 1949 Ala. 228; Jones v. Dallas County, 983 Acts

I. (11th Cir.1993) F.2d 237 (holding that underlying facts case rea 1988 are did not preclude pro sonably straightforward although case judge bate from continuing to vote to fill protracted procedural has had a history. position of County Dallas tax collector 1978, Prior to County 197). Dallas Commis in accordance with Act No. Alabama; Huffman, Dallas justice Harris judge is: "A who serves on commis- his official capacity as Sheriff of Dallas Coun- sion or board requires because the law Alabama; ty, Kynard, presence W.A. judge in his ca- official of a than rather pacity judge as Circuit Clerk of position.” Court Dallas Coun- was selected for the Alabama; Minor, ty, Erskine in his official Commissioner; capacity County as a Dallas origins 4.The of County the current Dallas Lide, John capacity in his official as a Dallas Commission are found in a act 1901 (cid:127) Commissioner; Varner, County Perry in his legislature. Alabama Alabama Act No. 328 capacity County official sioner; aas Dallas Commis- county established “the court of revenues Barber, Jr., Deans E. in his official county" composed Dallas judge "to be Commissioner; capacity County as a Dallas probate principal of judge, and four com- Vancil, Sweat, and Ed Barbara and Thomas missioners.” provided Section 1 of the Act Craig, capacities in their official as members that the four commissioners hold "shall office County Registrars. of the Dallas Board of years.” for four Section 2 provided of Act Defendants, Although named the lawsuit as hereby "when the court shall established Kynard John W. Jones agree W.A. session, both judge probate be in shall be the with the district order and filed court presiding judge present thereof when he is separate Appellee ..., briefs in this action. upon presiding judge tie vote the shall give casting vote.” Section of the Act plan The scheme is called the Lichtman county divided the "into four commissioner’s was described in States v. United Dallas Coun- required districts” and commission- "one Comm'n, ty (11th Cir.1988). F.2d er shall be elected from each said districts ...; provided, that all of said commissioners Appeals The Alabama Court of has by qualified said shall be elected all of the voters of 328, ex county.” "means virtue of the office." said Act No. 1900-01 Ala. Acts officio Abercrombie, 147, County 1970, Macon Ala.App. county 890-92. In each court reve- 449, (1913). 62 So. designated Black’s Law county Dictio- nue was as the commis- (7th ed.1999) nary provides 2628, ex- sion. No. more Act 1970 Ala. Acts now pansive explaining definition that an ex § codified Ala.Code 11-1-5. officio judge as the ex probate large challenged States .United In offi did not chairperson of the cio electing members method at-large section viola fully cure the Commission’s under County Commission Dallas County v. Dallas States tion. See United Voting Rights Act 2 of the Cir.1988), (11th Comm’n, § amended, 42 U.S.C. 1030, 109 denied, rt. ce diluted at-large elections grounds that We ordered L.Ed.2d 203 voters. See United of black strength single-mem adopt five County Dallas Comm’n, 548 States County Com districting plan for the ber (S.D.Ala.1982), F.Supp. aff'd chairperson of the Com with the mission remanded, vacated part, part, rev’d among the five from to be chosen mission Cir.1984). 739 F.2d 1529 also United States Id. See commissioners. held that the district Comm’n, F.2d 1433 v. Dallas county commissioners electing method of . Cir.1988) (11th (describing the Lichtman 2 the Unit not violate did section plan). proved that the statute had not ed States con- two districts plan established The method of elec which the under per- 72.4 majorities of taining voter black by dis was motivated established tion was contain- percent, two districts cent and 70 it black or that diluted criminatory intent majorities percent of 65 ing white voter County. See strength in Dallas voting swing and' a fifth district percent, and 64 Comm’n., F.Supp. at 548 County

Dallas majority of 61.3 a black voter containing part, reversed We affirmed 919. Comm’n, County 850 Dallas percent. See the case to the district remanded part, and that the plan required The F.2d at 1440. consider instructions to specific court with full composed of five mem- be voting and the racially polarized role of years four serving the same term of bers5 in Dallas effects of discrimination lingering voting rights. full the same with Dallas United States v. County. See ex longer served as the probate judge no (11th Comm’n, F.2d 1529 Cir. 739 County Commission; he chairperson of the officio 1984). remand, the district found court On meetings and did longer presided no over scheme for the at-large election However, of a tie.6 in the event not vote minori County Commission diluted Dallas authority to retained probate judge in violation of section strength ty voting when vote the other commissioners with County v. Dallas United See States just office vacancies in local filling certain (S.D.Ala. Comm’n, 710 F.Supp. injunction. prior to the he had as 1986). (11th Cir.1993). Jones, F.2d 237 violation, section remedy To replaced the role short, injunction adopt county court ordered district chairperson ex probate judge as officio four sin- that created an election scheme a full commission- of the Commission court The district gle-member districts. specifically position. to that elected er at- probate judge, still retained the probate judge probate as of the The role chairperson of the ex large, however, as the intact. On July remained judge, officio v. Dallas States Commission. See United directed that Comm’n, County 958-59 F.Supp. of the Dallas Commis- County the election (S.D.Ala.1987). pursuant to the Elev- hold- conducted again reversed sion We be plan.7 at- enth inclusion Circuit’s ing the continued chairperson acting the ex time as County of his commissioners 5. Dallas continued officio serve, prior injunction, in a as Commission. capacity. part-time County Commis- the Dallas March 7.In judge probate office of the continued redistricting plan adopted a new sion prior it was position, be full-time figures the 1990 Census under maintained However, injunction pro- post injunction. population racial approximately the same respon- judge time to bate devoted all his plan. any as the court-ordered longer spent breakdown office and no sibilities 25, 1996, Plaintiffs Dean On October event of a tie. Both County Middlebrooks, Johnny Butch and. Wilson Commission and the United appeal- States Alabama, white residents of ed the district court’s order.8 County against filed suit the Dallas Com- mission, officials, county various II. alleging United States the court-or- We review the district court’s changed dered election scheme size findings error, of fact for clear and we was, Commission and there- review its conclusions of de law novo. See fore, improper remedy an DeKalb County School District v. Schren Specifically, argued

violation. Plaintiffs ko, (11th Cir.), 109 F.3d cert. probate that the removal of the judge as denied, chairperson ex Com- officio L.Ed.2d 489 The decision to modi mission and the creation of a fifth full fy an is.subject commissioner, to an abuse with the same rights standard, discretion it serving years term of is an abuse of same as the commissioners, other discretion changed the size of to fail to make modifications (plus Commission from four members required by applicable Ensley law. See probate judge acting chairperson in Branch, Seibels, NAACP v. 31 F.3d capacity) ex to five full members. (11th Cir.1994); Godfrey v. officio BellSouth injunctive sought declaratory Plaintiffs Telecomm., Inc., 89 F.3d plan. relief from the court-ordered Plain- . Cir.1996) alleged tiffs also that the districting plan place in then violated section 5 of the A. Voting Act Rights because it had not been matter, anAs initial the Defen precleared, injunction and that the 1988 dants argue that the district court improp

violated the Tenth Amendment. On Octo- erly allowed the Plaintiffs to challenge the 17, 1997, ber Plaintiffs amended their injunction through an independent Complaint add alleging to claims action rather than requiring them to inter injunction Voting Rights violated the vene judgment action which the Act and the Fourteenth Amendment. was entered. argue The Defendants The district court day conducted a four because the Plaintiffs are trying to amend 29, May bench trial in 1998. On March judgment previous case, in a issued 1999, the district court judgment entered should be forced to seek relief from the for the Plaintiffs. The court held that the same court that entered original judg injunction “impermissibly altered the Indeed, matter, ment. a general as inter County size” the Dallas Commission and pursuant vention to Fed.R.Civ.P. is the unjustified was “both illegal and under the appropriate way for an outsider with an applicable law as well as the circumstances interest in an existing lawsuit to come in of this case.” Order at 3. The court termi- party. Kane, as a Wright, See 1C Miller & nated the 1988 and ordered the Federal.Practice and Procedure: 2d Civil development implementation of a four (1986). § at 228 Intervention in the single-member plan. district The district original action generally proper is also court probate also ordered the to judge mechanism for position nonparty resume his to seek as chairman ex relief officio with the sole from an presiding existing judgment. duties of over the Commission’s meetings casting Wright, Kane, a vote Miller & Federal Practice argument In late pending March after oral judgment appeal, our or alterna- case, been heard in this the Dallas tively staying primary for an order elec- Commission and the United States filed tions for Dallas commissioners until Emergency Stay asking Motions for this Court appeal. we April ruled on the On stay to the district court's March Appellants’ Stay. denied Motions for proceedings Order and to enforce that Order duty parties potential all additional § at 350 on 2d Civil Procedure: at 2186. Id. at Parish to Rapides Hines v. intervene. (1995); also see joined Board, Cir. not were Because

School 1973) proper course action, independent that “the (holding their original cur seeking parental groups precluded. therefore Id. were not claims implementation in the rent deficiencies 761, 109 at 2184.10 group is for orders desegregation support for the some offers While Wilks it to court to allow petition the district the district court argument that Plaintiffs’ action”).9 prior in the intervene bring an them to inde- properly allowed private respond The Plaintiffs in- challenging the 1988 pendent action previ parties were citizens who compelling the find even more junction, we inter obliged were not action ous fact, recognize, both sides which personal right when a in that action vene collateral attack this case Plaintiffs’ Plaintiffs was at stake. such the same as practical purposes all was for Wilks, 490 on Martin v. support rely for action. original No- an intervention 2184-87, 755, 762-67, 109 S.Ct. arose independent tably, action Wilks, L.Ed.2d was heard court and same district rejected argument Supreme Court origi- handled the judge who same firefighters plaintiff white Moreover, to the parties nal case. initial intervene timely failed all, par- include independent action challenge current proceedings, action, including the original ties to the decree under the consent taken to actions named in this States United initial action constituted out of the arising party of its status as case because Id. at collateral attack. impermissible district court proceeding, and the prior Instead, the Court 109 S.Ct. at portions of the judicial notice of those took chal firefighters could that the white held parties original proceedings on which pursu decisions made employment lenge rely. For an intention to these announced an inde through decree to the consent ant reasons, implicate not this case does 762-69, Id. at S.Ct. action. pendent prejudice that problems and can potential mandatory a rule of rejecting In 2185-88. permitted to chal- plaintiffs arise when are intervention, explained Supreme Court a by through court entered lenge relief one place bur sense to it made that more in a wholly independent action commenced join a to bringing lawsuit party on the den a different place court before rather than to different parties all interested U.S.C.2000e-2(n)(1). While prior to Octo tain." issued Fifth Circuit decisions 9. greatly Rights Act curtailed circum binding precedent Civil ber are challenge a can nonparty which a City Prich See Bonner stances Eleventh Circuit. action, Cir.1981) (en it ard, previous a decree entered in consent F.2d portion of banc). does not address or undermine case; most to our name that is relevant Will<s anything Rights ly, Act not have Civil does the Civil Congress responded to Wilks in nonparty, say whether cases to about a limiting explicitly Rights by Act of 1991 judgment, may challenge previous a it where challenge consent parties to ability of third through or an inde do so intervention must dis resolving employment claims of decrees logic Supreme Court’s pendent The action. rights action. through a crimination civil challenge may through a be made that such provides Rights Act of the Civil Section 108 through independent action rather than challenged an may be degree that a consent by the Civil person remains unaffected rights by a who intervention civil laws under the Moreover, does not Rights Act. case fall actual entry judgment prior to the had party actions curtailed the set of third judgment to within proposed "sufficient notice of the Rights this case by Act because in judgment or Civil person such apprise that such remedying challenge an a to adversely the interests and volves might affect order than Voting Rights rather oppor Act violation person and that an legal rights of such arising in challenge a consent decree an to present objections to tunity to was available cáse. employment cer discrimination by a date judgment order future such or short, In judge. independent result, Plaintiffs’ dants. As a we have little difficulty in concluding that in this case the district danger action in this case raises no that by did not err allowing the Plaintiffs levy different courts will competing and their challenge injunc- to the 1988 contradictory judgments upon the Defen- tion through independent an' action.11 dissent contends that The the Plaintiffs scheme did violate section and the defen- standing appeal lack Article III to assert claims dants not to their decided the decision. The they because have failed to that intervenors new demonstrate filed motions to intervene in pursue they any appeal. order to particu- suffered concrete defendants’ district court denied these injury stemming motions larized from the 1988 in- without matter, explanation. appeal On junction. argued As an initial note that we standing the intervenors lacked to challenge neither Defendant inter- saw fit to vene sufficiently because course, "lack[ed] sub- standing appeal. Plaintiffs’ Of Meek, legally protectible stantial interests.” independent obligation federal court has an 985 F.2d at 1480. This Court reversed mak- jurisdiction any to it has ensure over ing clear that the intervenors had suffered an brought jurisdictional claim before it even if injury sufficiently permit concrete not questions by party. are not raised either them intervene in the action but also suffi- 737, 742, Hays, States v. 515 U.S. United give standing cient to them to defend the (1995) S.Ct. 132 L.Ed.2d 635 general appeal. election scheme on We ex- (noting standing "[t]he is not plained that: subject to waiver.... 'The federal courts are sought intervenors to vindicate impor- independent obligation under examine personal tant maintaining interests in jurisdiction, per- own is system governed election their exercise haps important jurisdictional] most of [the political power, democratically estab- ”) FW/PBS, Dallas, (quoting doctrines.' Inc. system lished that the district court’s order 215, 230-31, 596, 607-08, 493 U.S. such, they alleged As tangi- altered. (1990)) (internal quotation L.Ed.2d prospective injury ble actual or and did not omitted); University marks South Alabama merely challenge unlawful conduct in the Co., v. American Tobacco generally, e.g. Lujan abstract. See v. Defend- (11th Cir.1999) (emphasizing that "it is well 555, 574-75, Wildlife, ers 504 U.S. obligated settled that a federal court 119 L.Ed.2d 351 inquire subject jurisdiction into matter sua Moreover, reject appellees’ we contention sponte may lacking”). whenever it be There- only nonjusticiable that the intervenors had fore, while the Defendants' silence does not generalized grievances simply responsibility absolve us of the our do own widely asserted interests shared others. standing analysis, significant it find 737, 756-60, Wright, Allen v. neither United States nor 3315, 3327-29, S.Ct. (1984). argument County Commission found this . worthy appeal. of mention on Id. at 1480 See also Clark v. Putnam support standing argument, its of. 458, (11th Cir.1999) 168 (holding 462 suggests dissent that this Circuit's decision in that six voters were to black entitled intervene Florida, Metropolitan County Meek v. Dade single-member-dis to defend a court-ordered (11th Cir.1993), 985 F.2d 1471 is di- voting plan they trict because had an interest rectly point, by on has been overruled more at stake in the action and that interest was not Meek, Supreme recent Court cases. In adequately represented by existing the defen standing Court affirmed par- the of voters to action). dant in the Like the intervenors in ticipate challenging in an action constitu- Meek, protect in this case seek Plaintiffs to tionality voting scheme to which being illegal their free from interests an subject. plaintiffs, were The and His- black court-imposed system. electoral panic County, challenged residents of Dade a on, addressing Instead of Meek head voting scheme in eight County which the suggests holding dissent that its has been eight were Commissioners selected dis- from by overruled or somehow eviscerated the Su- tricts but each commissioner was elected at- preme Court in English Arizonans for Official large. plaintiffs argued The that Arizona, 43, 1055, 520 U.S. 117 S.Ct. election scheme violated of the Vot- (1997), 737, Hays, L.Ed.2d 170 515 U.S. ing Rights County 2431, Two residents of Act. Dade 115 S.Ct. 132 L.Ed.2d 635. The dissent registered who sought were voters to inter- relies on cases for two broad these assertions: vene existing to defend the first, election scheme. standing person that order to have "a The district denied the intervenors’ mo- legally must show ... an pro- invasion of holding tions to intervene that interests particular- tected that is concrete and interest imminent,” were to the defendants' identical and ade- ized and actual or Arizonans for quately represented by them. English, After bench 520 U.S. at at S.Ct. Official trial, (citing Lujan court ruled Wildlife, district that the election of Defenders that was the pellees in the district resided 2130, 2136, gerrymander primary of their racial focus U.S. (1992)) (internal quotation Hays, marks at S.Ct. at claim. L.Ed.2d omitted); second, however, generalized "a that emphasized, Court 2433. The governmen allegedly illegal against grievance allegedly gerryman- voters lived in who to establish is not sufficient injury tal conduct” standing, Hays, have an would suffered dered district at at 115 S.Ct. U.S. According standing. to to establish sufficient omitted). (citations detailed A more Court, plaintiff in a "Where a resides cases, however, analysis these of and critical plaintiff district racially gerrymandered [ ] the support for the offers neither clear that makes equal because of denied treatment has been in this case. position dissent’s criteria, legislature's on racial reliance English, a state In Arizonans Official for standing challenge the to has therefore Yniguez, sued the Maria-Kelly F. employee, Hays, at 744- legislature’s action.” U.S. General, Governor, Attorney and its State omitted). (citations at 2436 115 S.Ct. Department of Administration Director Hays argue to dissent relies against of enforcement seeking an allege only they are resi- the Plaintiffs making En amendment constitutional stale par- rather than of dents Dallas of language. Both the glish official the state’s district, they racially gerrymandered ticular appeals ruled the court of court and district requirements of stand- satisfied the have not was uncon English only amendment argument Dissenting Op. at 3287. This ing. vacated these Supreme Court stitutional. holding Hays. misapplies of Yniguez had opinions and held that because bright-line standing Hays lays rule down a position state her with the resigned from illegal alleging particular class of cases for a appeal the had case the case was on while voting respect gerrymandering with racial expressed dicta the Court become moot. districts:, racially plaintiff if the lives sponsors of "grave whether the doubts” about district, standing; if gerrymandered she has amendment, En Official for Arizonans not, specific evi- produce she must she does Chairman, (AOE) glish and its Committee other than the fact dence harm of Park, to intervene Robert might been composition of her district constitutionality on defend the amendment’s gerrymandering different were it not for English, 520 appeal. Arizonans Official 1068. AOE suggestion district. There is no of the other and Park at 117 S.Ct. at Hays any subsequent that we decision proponents they argued that as the initiative —or district-by-district defending of—that are aware quasi-legislative interest in had a applies to a they spon analysis adopted that decision constitutionality of the measure that while it has or Meekwhich not have The Court noted case as this does sored. such . legislators gerrymandering have stand "recognized anything that state and re- to do holding a decision state sta ing contest allegedly illegal electoral instead to an lates authorizes t if state law ute unconstitutional covering entire election area. scheme interests,” represent the legislators to State’s are This is not a case in which at AOE and its at 117 S.Ct. id. partic- alleging gerrymandering in racial one representatives were not elected members voting where do reside. ular law "aware of no Arizona the Court was case, contend all In this the Plaintiffs agents sponsors appointing initiative illegal being subjected to an defend, public lieu people Arizona expands the scheme that size election officials, constitutionality of initiatives from four members State,” id. The Court also made law of thereby altering the five members representa cast doubt on AOE’s assertion County. strength voter within the of each standing noting that or associational tional Hays, are the Plaintiffs in this case Unlike in injury mem requisite concrete to AOE "[t]he governed the chal- of the area residents Id. at apparent.” bers is not illegal their vot- lenged election scheme and by ing powers plainly are affected AOE and Park had of whether scheme. legisla- standing sponsors particular as the of ' ' Moreover, Hays emphasize nar- in defend- represent the state’s interest tion to ing standing gerry- holding regarding in the row guidance legislation provides on no entirely mandering with context is consistent governing whether voters who within live Hays, holding in Meek. In our broader challenge allegedly standing an unit illegal voting stand- Supreme Court held that had they are sub- scheme to which gerrymandering ing bring their racial Moreover, ject by virtue of their residence. allegedly gerryman- claim if lived English did Court Arizonans Official for respon- In Meek we held that dered district. standing because of not resolve issue even standing to defend the election dents had Id. its that the case was moot. conclusion subject they were when scheme to Hays, Supreme Court held that the In challenged as scheme had been entire election standing challenge appellees a Loui- lacked point re- illegal. cases the essential ap- In both redistricting plan when siana none

1305 B. Chief Rehnquist Justice and Justice O’Connor, explained that in order to find The law to the Plaintiffs’ relevant case, liability a section 2 a court must by challenge to the 1988 is now find a practice reasonable alternative as a undisputed. clear and A federal court can against benchmark which to measure modify governing not the size of existing practice whether re 2 body remedy order to a section viola Holder, sults in vote dilution. 512 U.S. at principled tion there is no reason 880, 114 S.Ct. at 2585. plurality then legislative body to choose a of one size explained that “the search for a bench pur over one of a for different size mark quite problematic § is 2 when a dilu poses determining whether there has challenge tion brought is size of generally been vote dilution. Holder See government body” because “[t] here is no Hall, 512 114 S.Ct. principled why reason one size should be (1994); Alabama, L.Ed.2d 687 White v. picked over another as the benchmark for (11th Cir.1996); Nipper F.3d 1058 comparison.” 881, 114 Id. at S.Ct. at 2586. (11th Cir.1994) (en Smith, 39 F.3d 1494 The plurality therefore concluded that “a denied, banc), cert. plaintiff § cannot maintain a challenge to S.Ct. government the size of a body, such as the Holder, argued black voters that the size Bleckley County Commission.” Id. at county Bleckley commission of S.Ct. 2588. Justices Thomas and County, Georgia violated section agreed Scalia holding that “the Voting Rights Bleckley County always Act. governing .body size of a cannot be at a single-commissioner govern form of § tacked 2” under but rested their concur ment, but legislature 1985 the state grounds.12 rence on other Id. at county authorized the to adopt by referen (Thomas, J., at 2591 concurring dum a consisting multimember commission in judgment). of five members elected from single-mem at-large. ber districts and a chair elected We have since held twice that Holder Voters, however, proposal powers defeated the limits the of the federal remedial thereby prompting challenge by black courts under prohibits dis- majority Supreme voters. A trict changing Court courts from the size of a held that the a governing body county governing body. size of is In Nipper we subject challenge rejected to a vote dilution challenge section vote dilution plurality opinion, under section 2. The brought by registered black voters and an by Kennedy joined written Justice by attorneys association of black to the at- Citizens, standing League mains that in order to have one must United Latin American Clements, directly by reside in the area affected Council No. 4434 v. allegedly illegal voting Hays (5th Cir.1993) (finding judges scheme. no who had inter way holding inconsistent with our Meek. standing vened as defendants had Article III Simply put, squarely the case at hand is by challenged judicial as voters affected by holding controlled this Court’s in Meek. pursue indepen election scheme to case explicitly Meekhas neither been overruled nor dently appeal);. Organiza United Jewish implicitly by Supreme Wilson, undermined Williamsburgh, tions Inc. v. Court's (2nd decisions in En 1975) (holding Arizonans F.2d 512 Cir. that white Official glish, Hays, or and we are bound to follow it. challenge voters had as voters to York’s, Hogan, See United States v. 986 F.2d legislative redistricting plan New signed de (11th Cir.1993) (explaining that "it is Act). comply Voting Rights with the firmly established rule of this Circuit that succeeding panel emphasized "[ojnly is bound the hold 12. Justice Thomas each ing law, panel voting qualification prerequisite voting, of the first to address an or issue standard, holding practice, procedure' unless and until that is overruled or or can be banc, Court”). Supreme challenged § en or More under 2” and that the concluded over, "standard, altogether governing body Meek our decision in is con size of a is not a holdings practice, procedure" with the or sistent granting of other circuits within terms of Holder, challenge voters election section 2. 512 U.S. at 114 S.Ct. subject. schemes to which are at 2591. of voting strength late courts diluted to elect the used system large election 2 of in violation of section voters Circuit black Fourth Judicial Florida’s of judges par The Act. Id. at 1059. Voting Rights plaintiffs contended Court. Unit agreement, an ties entered diluted black vot elections use of pre- Department of Justice of ed States sought the creation They strength. ing cleared, restructured the that ability would would that ensure subdistricts Alabama, of the Court of Nip Supreme Court choice. judges of their to elect black of Civil and the Court Appeals, the Criminal rejecting In at 1496-97. 39 F.3d per, of increasing the size those relief, Appeals by emphasized we claim for plaintiffs’ process a selection creating and Holder, may not federal courts courts that “under the black voters ensure that of remedy that a state would aas section mandate “representatives at least two the size of its Alabama alter subdivision political or Id. at 1061. court. on each may of their choice” courts Federal bodies.... approved agreement court The district government form of state’s not alter the [ ] judgment. final part of the it and made identify princi ‘a they cannot itself when ap that in we held Again, 1061. Id. at why one [alternative reason pled the district court ex relief proving such picked challenged] should be being model authority its under ceeded compari a benchmark for over another as ” judgment. Id. the district court’s Holder, vacated (quoting at 1532 Id. son.’ under Hold emphasized at We 2586). 881, 114 at at court the district “lacked Nipper, er and White, dis- vacated the Similarly, in we to in authority require Alabama approval of trict court’s settlement courts.” Id. appellate the size of its crease a class of into between entered agreement at . 1072 of Alabama the State black voters disputes have increased the No one is which would Alabama in this case. appeals. authority applicable binding Alabama courts of size of the issue, then, White, the factual In a class is one White, primary at 1061. 74 F.3d injunction imposed by the 1988 in Alabama of whether black voters composed all the size of changed process the district at-large election argued that specif- More County Commission.13 appel- of Alabama’s to elect members used States, (10th 982 F.2d v. United there 13. Just as the determination whether Cir.1992) findings (noting "like Voting that ultimate in a section been vote dilution has fact, fact-findings, subject ‘subsidiary’ are never- finding so too is Rights is a Act case findings of fact are to the rule that has been a theless of whether there the determination erroneous”). clearly unless set aside County Com- to be change of the Dallas size DeVaron, a district Similarly, held that subject finding of fact mission ultimate role determination of a defendant's Thornburg Gingles, v. court's error review. See clear 2752, 2780-81, 30, 78-79, finding to be reviewed is a of fact 106 S.Ct. offense 478 U.S. DeVaron, F.3d at 937. (1986) error. (affirming for clear ultimate regard- explained that the determination question We finding is a of fact of vote dilution directly ing offense was based clearly role subject to the erroneous standard legal interpretation review). intermediation or ex- Gingles, Supreme Court without subsidiary factual find- court’s finding dilu- plained vote "ultimate role ings regarding "the in her defendant's question the trial of fact because tion” is degrees of relative necessarily conduct based on relevant court’s is determination participants in that culpability of the other totality of circum- a consideration " case, as at In this upon Id. ‘peculiarly dependent conduct.” stances ” DeVaron, ultimate Gingles and at 106 S.Ct. each case.’ Id. the facts of the size of the Commission whether Rogers Lodge, about (quoting 3272, 3277, directly the district changed from is derived 73 L.Ed.2d DeVaron, findings subsidiary regarding 1012). factual 175 F.3d court’s United States Cf. Cir.1999) banc) power, term in (en of- (holding the differences fice, probate judge as ex and duties role in the of defendant’s that determination the full chairperson and finding subject of fact offense is an ultimate officio member replaced. We with whom he the sub- error review as were the same clear based); is not mixed this determination add that sidiary it was Tinkler facts on which question judge played boils down to this: ically, the an active role in the Commiss pre-injunction probate judge Moreover, the whether they ion.14 argue that the dif chairperson role ex acting in his as voting rights ferences in between the pre- officio of the Commission should be counted as a probate judge as ex chairper officio full member of the Commission for the son and the current chairperson do not purposes determining pre-injunction the probate indicate that the judge/chairper probate size of the Commission. If the son was not a full' Commission member. chairperson as judge acting of the Com- concede, must, While as that the capacity in an mission ex had essen- pre-injunction probate officio judge/chairperson duties, tially power, purpose the same and did not voting rights, have full they ob as the Commission member with whom full serve that he deciding was the vote the replaced, he was then we must find event of a tie and therefore in every voted change. the size of the Commission did not situation in which his vote would have however, probate If ex judge acting as made a difference. The Defendants add of the played chair Commission officio the probate judge/chairperson’s tie- significantly different role on the Commis- breaking voting power indicates that sion than did the full Commission member probate judge played significant as a role replaced with whom he was then the size in policy-making as did the other four com change. did We con- Commission missioners and shows that Commission clude that because the differences between policy injunction before the 1988 was set probate judge acting role five, than rather four Commission chairperson of the Commission an ex members. capacity and the role of full Com- officio mission member are point indeed substantial Defendants also Dillard Ala., (11th and important, the district court did not County, Crenshaw 831 F.2d 246 clearly Cir.1987) finding injunc- err in support of their contention tion changed County size of the Dallas pre-1988 probate judge acting Commission. capacity his chairperson ex officio should be considered a Commission argue simply

Defendants that the 1988 full member. Commission Dillard in- injunction change did not size of 2 challenge volved a section injunction because before Commission election of the commissioners of the Cal- probate judge in his role as ex officio houn County Commission Calhoun chairperson acted as a full Commission The Calhoun Alabama. They member. contend that both before originally composed Commission was and after the 1988 the Commis- two associate commissioners and a sion should be viewed as chair- having five mem- bers, person, all at-large. electing the manner of changed. injunction against court issued an at- officials Defendants contend probate large the fact that the was election commissioners and judge officio n ex respond member of the does ordered Calhoun Commission with proposals that he was not a full mean member. as to how to solve the They historically probate stress that County responded violation. Calhoun (5th 1962) question question (noting of law and fact Cir. that a mixed question applica of law and fact involves the about the size of the Commission flows direct legal particular tion of a tion). standard to a situa ly subsidiary findings from factual and is by any intervening legal unmediated standard Realty or definition. See Suburban Co. Appellants point Judge out that Probate States, United 615 F.2d Cir. Jones, Chairperson W. John the Commission 1980) (explaining question that a that involves 1988, represented before legal the application of standards to facts is meetings on various committees

best characterized as a mixed of fact spokesperson private for the Commission at law); States, public Stevens v. United functions. for the helpful a model Dillard membership of not find the to increase proposal a critical differ- There are present case. retain the to five but-to the commission under- two between the cases chair ences at-large commission position of an helping us mine Dillard’s usefulness rejected the at- court The district person, pro- pre-injunction whether the chair, instead determine and position ordered large capacity as ex judge acting bate his among the five associ rotate chair that the chairperson present in the case consid appeal, we On commissioners. ate officio a full be counted as correctly- should the district ered whether commission member. position proposed the ruled that the to correct County failed by Calhoun Dillard, chairperson had histori- the. 2 violation. Calhoun original section commis- full member of the cally a been pro new distinguish the tried to com- originally sion. The commission was from at-large, chairperson posed and posed of-two associate commissioners that argue effort to position the old at- were elected chairpérson, all of whom a an inde really held chairperson new the and all of county whole large from the subject to and should not be pendent office voting power. equal full and whom had representation issues proportional the at 247. The historical status See id. County emphasized section Calhoun a full member chairperson as commission chairperson commission proposed power was criti- equal voting with and full role; legislative a limited

would that the in Dillard cal to our conclusion meet over commission preside' would he treat- chairperson also be proposed, should except vote have no ings but would for full commission member ed as a County argued case of a tie. Calhoun (explaining that id. at 251 purposes. See chairperson serve would because new historically practically, and the ov- “[b]oth administrative, legisla not a primarily an of the commission erlap the roles between not be role, chairperson should tive chairperson do not allow us to commis a full member considered separate, single- office as a consider this Instead, County argued, pro sion. Dillard did not position”). Notably, office treat position should be posed chairperson present raised involve single-member office. separate ed as a judge acting as probate of whether a case capacity, chairperson a in an ex County’s argument and rejected the We officio voting powers, substantially different that because of- historical held office, term of and different overlap between the roles different practical from the other commission- responsibilities the chair- chairperson, commission and ers, a full commission be considered separate should could not be considered a person purposes determining Dil- for the position. See member office single-member body. The governmental lard, the size F.2d at 251. We held pro- previously held that a full of the com- fact that member chairperson was chairperson designed to representa- posed commission subject proportional mission historically filled replace position that the district court cor- tion issues full commission member must be treated chairperson electing ruled rectly for of a section original purposes sec- as a full member to correct the at-large failed on whether light does not shed challenge, at 252-53. Id. tion violation. probate the pre-injunction case Appellants contend capacity as the ex judge acting in his offi- was chairperson in Dillard con- proposed Commission, who chairperson of the cio member for the sidered a full commission a full historically Com- treated remedy, pre- purposes of a section member, counted as should be mission acting in his ca- injunction probate judge purposes of determin- full member chairperson should pacity as ex also officio commission. ing size of the the Com- be a full member of considered to us emphasize appear what had similar roles Plaintiffs mission since the two here be- However, be several critical differences we do to voting capacity. the same probate judge guments exist on the other side pre-injunction tween capacity probate in his as the ex determination whether the acting officio judge acting chairperson the full as ex chairperson of the Commission and officio whom he was looks like a full member with Commission member for Commission First, injunction. purposes comparing pre of of replaced after the sizes probate post injunction elected as a and is probate judge largely Commissions However, judgment not as a member. The a call. that judge, Commission we find role, in probate judge simply chairperson purpose, power acted as the differences in capacity probate judge acting of the an ex between the chair- Commission as officio position person but was never elected to on the of the Commission an ex officio Second, probate capacity a full judge Commission. Commission member in different elections and significant compel was chosen are us to conclude years injunction of than effectively served a different term did Therefore, changed while the County the commissioners. the size the Dallas year served concurrent four commissioners Commission. Commission, probate terms on the Perhaps important even more than our terms, year who to

judge, was elected six however, finding, own is the fact that the chairperson the ex served as officio district unequivocal court made a clear and a longer years. Commission for term of finding injunction factual the 1988 Third, in chair- capacity his as ex officio changed the size of the Dallas Commission, person probate Commission and we must review this find possess voting did not the same judge ing for Thornburg clear error. See v. In- rights as did the other commissioners. 78-79, 106 2752, Gingles, 478 U.S. S.Ct. matters, probate all voting stead of (1986) 2780-81, (affirming 92 L.Ed.2d 25 judge acting chairperson as ex vot- officio finding that ultimate dilution vote is a ed cases of a tie.15 question subject clearly of fact erro review); emphasize that the before us We issue neous standard United States Cir.1999) (11th DeVaron, is the narrow and discrete factual 175 F.3d ( banc) change (explaining of whether the from Commission that ultimate en composed plus findings subsidiary of four full commissioners factual like the facts on probate chairperson judge acting as an which are based are entitled to clear review); States, capacity ex was elected to a error Tinkler v. United officio —who (10th Cir.1992) position, holds office for a F.2d (noting different differ- 982 years, findings ‘subsidiary’ ent term of and has different that ultimate “like powers on the than the full ... not to be fact-findings, are set aside erroneous”). composed clearly According members —to Commission of unless (one court, full “im- five Commission members the district the 1988 designated chairperson) is permissibly [the whom altered the size of —who office, specifically all by expelling Commission] [] were years, simply all hold office for the same term of chairman because he was ex-officio possess voting powers— and all the same also the who must elect Judge Probate be significant enough by creating previously is for us to conclude ed ” change position.... that a in the size of unauthorized the Commis- commissioner Indeed, recognize sion occurred. We that real ar- Order at 3.16 the district court’s note, however, preclude probate judge 15. We that both before and tion did not from continuing position to vote to fill the of Dallas injunction, judge probate after the 1988 County tax collector in accordance with Act probate judge authority his role as to vote Therefore, 197). probate No. the role of the filling with the Commission when certain va judge probate judge largely remained in local See Act No. cancies office. injunction. same both before and after the 227; Acts Act Ala. No. 1949 Ala. Acts 228; Jones v. Dallas Appel- 16. The district court concluded that 1993) (holding injunc attempt equate pre-injunction Cir. that the 1988 lants' (1998); Arizo- prior our own S.Ct. consistent finding is Arizona, English v. of the 1988 nans of the effect understanding for Official 43, 64, 1988 decision 137 L.Ed.2d In this Court’s S.Ct. injunction. impose (1997); Wildlife, Lujan instructing the district Defenders of recognized explicitly injunction, injunction was an result this record there L.Ed.2d 351 On the size of Commission. alteration of concluding no basis for Wilson that its court is aware “The stated: We satisfy the elements Middlebrooks single-member a five- adoption of plaintiffs in this inde- standing, either as of an additional in the creation plan results pendent action or order intervene Comm’n, official.” lawsuit. the earlier 1432 n. 850 F.2d at may jur exercise Before a federal reviewing all of the thoroughly After it, a claim before brought isdiction over us, conclude that the evidence before litigants court must determine that accurately under injunction is most 1988 As the have, standing bring to that suit. the size of the Dallas changing stood as Supreme emphasized repeate has Court district court The County Commission. ,dly and we hold that this find found as much subject is not standing [t]he of this light clear error. ing was not waiver, required are “[We] to however: precedent the clear finding factual if to address the issue even the courts Supreme Court from both it, passed have not and even below if in establishing change that a Circuit issue parties to raise the fail before proper body is not governing size of a federal courts are under us.” The violation, the dis remedy for independent obligation to examine in the 1988 trict conclusion court’s jurisdiction, standing per- own impermissible remedy for junction was an haps important jurisdic- most Ac 2 violation was essential. a section tional doctrines. the district cordingly, we conclude Hays, 515 U.S. United States in vacat not abuse its discretion court did (1995) 2431, L.Ed.2d 635 S.Ct. injunction and affirm its ing the 1988 added) FW/PBS, Inc. v. (emphasis (citing 29, 1999 March Order. 215, Dallas, 230-231, 110 S.Ct. 493 U.S. AFFIRMED. (1990)); L.Ed.2d 603 see also Arizonans, at 117 S.Ct. 1055. U.S. BARKETT, Judge, dissenting: Circuit Supreme Court “made clear that has I I do not believe dissent because party it is the who seeks burden standing in this case. have jurisdiction clearly in favor exercise of his to ter Wilson and Middlebrooks filed suit demonstrating facts that he is a allege in an earlier minate an entered judicial proper party to invoke resolution participated, ei they case which never at dispute.” Hays, 515 U.S. or interve- plaintiffs, ther as defendants (citations S.Ct. fail to demonstrate they nors. Because omitted). quotation marks and internal any concrete and have suffered and Middlebrooks have not borne Wilson particularized injury stemming from this this burden. injunction, they have also failed to earlier qualify party In order as a with “[t]o standing have un demonstrate that show, litigate, person must standing bring III der Article of the Constitution e foremost, an a legally first and invasion of Federal Election thes claims. Akins, 11, 23-24, par- interest that is concrete and protected Comm’n U.S. recognized legitimate regular are now probate judge/chairperson with a lions which overreaching.” proscriptions against judicial comparing "apples commission member is oranges Order at in-an effort to avoid the limita-

13H standing ticularized and actual or imminent.” Ari- restricted to “those who are per zonans, at sonally equal S.Ct. 1055 denied by treatment” Lujan, 504 at (citing challenged discriminatory U.S. S.Ct. conduct. Id. omitted). 2130) (internal added). quotation (emphasis marks The Court contrasted Lujan, generalized As the Court made clear grievance asserted ap- “particularized,” injury pellees order to be in that type case with the of con plaintiff personal in a “must affect equal protection injury crete that would be way.” individual Id. at 560-61 n. & sufficient to standing. sustain The Court Supreme 2130. The has S.Ct. Court “re- found that racially residents of a gerry peatedly recognize general- refused to mandered district would standing against grievance allegedly illegal ized challenge redistricting because “[vot governmental conduct as sufficient may ers such special districts suffer the judicial invoke the federal representational harms racial classifica power.” Hays, 115 tions can cause the voting context.”2 (citations quotation and internal marks 745, 115 Id. at S.Ct. 2431. omitted). panel rejected Meek the conten footnote, majority In its relies on tion that the only nonjusti intervenors had Metropolitan Meek v. Dade County, 985 generalized ciable grievances on the 1471, Cir.1993), support to grounds that accepted “if we such an argu Meek, in standing the instant case. an ment, we would be forced to conclude that prior Eleventh Circuit case decided plaintiffs most of the standing, also lack a Supreme in Court’s decisions Arizonans conclusion by many foreclosed cases in Hays, stated that individuals have a which permit individual voters have been private right important per- “to vindicate ted to challenge practices,” election citing interests in maintaining sonal the election Chavis, precedent as Whitcomb v. 403 U.S. system governed po- their exercise of 124, 1858, (1971), 91 S.Ct. 29 L.Ed.2d 363 power, democratically litical a established Carr, 186, and Baker v. 369 U.S. 82 S.Ct. system that the district court’s order had 691, (1962). 7 L.Ed.2d 663 The recent However, in light altered.” Id. of more Supreme Court cases make clear Supreme pronouncements recent Court on reasoning misconceives the nature of the I standing, do not think that such an ill- injury in alleged voting rights cases. sufficiently defined interest concrete to standing Plaintiffs’ to assert their claims support standing under Article III.1 against challenged practices election in Whitcomb, 128-29, Supreme In Hays, expressly Court 403 U.S. at 91 S.Ct. against Carr, 207-8, affirmed the generalized rule at U.S. 82 S.Ct. grievances, holding that the mere fact that derived not from their status as indi voters, in appellees that case were residents and vidual but from the fact that personally voters of Louisiana was not sufficient to were equal denied treatment in give standing challenge them Louisi- violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. congressional ana’s redistricting plan. Similarly, plaintiffs in alleged Meek rejected appellees’ position The Court in injury concrete the form of vote dilution claim,” in “anybody Hays, the State has a Voting Rights under Section Act. 743-44, Meek, 515 U.S. at S.Ct. See 908 F.2d at 1541-42. Those Hays 1. The two decisions of other circuits which Court stated that a voter would standing plaintiff majority have support standing "[w]here cites resides in in were district,” racially gerrymandered 515 U.S. at prior Hays. also decided See Arizonans 2431, explaining that in such a Citizens, League United Latin American plaintiff equal situation "the has been denied Clements, Council No. 4434 999 F.2d 831 legislature’s treatment because reliance (5th Cir.1993); Organizations United Jewish criteria, standing on racial and therefore has Wilson, of Williamsburgh, Inc. v. 510 F.2d 512 challenge legislature’s action.” Id. (2nd 1975). Cir. added). (emphasis every voters-that Louisiana recognizes, alleged cog- Louisiana Hays plaintiffs, statutory or consti- standing challenge to their voter has Act injury nizable rights. Only citi- tutional a racial classification. those allege injury “as a direct zens able to case, plaintiffs fail to al In the instant having personally result of been denied either the 'exact complaint in lege their Allen, treatment,” equal S.Ct. injury or alleged suffered nature a chal- may bring at such U.S. in any “personal stake” carry do lenge, and citizens who so Lujan, 504 litigation. of this outcome as well proving burden of 583, 112 are left to S.Ct. 2130. We on the merits. their case individual personal in what speculate injured.3 Plaintiffs’ they have been way at 746. Hays, 115 S.Ct. 515 U.S. injunction in the Court’s claim currently place The election scheme Hold light suit was ultra vires earlier affects the voters of Dallas specific than an er is no more assertion the same extent that the Louisi- govern generalized right to have districting appellees scheme affected ana law,” right ment “act accordance However, Hays. as that case makes rejected in Supreme Court Allen clear, requires something III more Article 737, 754, 104 Wright, merely being than affected in order to Nor do cognizable,injury. The racial clas- assert any theory cognizable articulate of a sification suffered those residents protection equal of harm under or vote racially gerrymandered district meets this contrary, To the jurisprudence. dilution requirement; mere “residence the area that majority writes Wilson Mid directly allegedly illegal affected protect their interests dlebrooks “seek scheme,” maj. op. at n. being illegal court-imposed free from an not. does characterization, system.” electoral This' implication and the concomitant that all of as Wilson and Middlebrooks have Just standing would have théy standing not demonstrated bring suit because “all of Dallas action, I bring independent do not being subjected illegal to an election they could have overcome believe scheme,” only to underscore the serves problem by standing moving to inter- generalized nature of Wilson and Middle earlier suit. “The decision to vene grievance.. Hays brook’s As the court ex placed seek review is not to be plained, bystanders, persons hands of concerned ' it for the who would seize vehicle Act Appellees challenged insist that Arizonans, of value vindication interests.” 1 in District 4 in iso- entirety, its not (citations 520 U.S. at 64 It lation. That is true. is also irrele- omitted). quotations and internal marks vant. The fact that Act 1 affects all plaintiffs’ If the bar to by classifying each of Louisiana voters were, majority suggests, as the this case particular them a of a con- as member requirement inter- the technical if gressional district does not mean-even Rule injury pursuant Act 1 on some vene to Federal of Civil inflicts race-based application right governed public large proper asserted “not to be Plaintiffs’ by public state law officials not chosen under the Constitution and laws is insufficient using race-based selection criteria” is not Arizonans, allege injury. See 520 U.S. at an cognizable injury in the Article III sense. 117 S.Ct. Merely sharing generally an interest with the bringing instead of this law Procedure 24 action, I independent agree as an

suit case, present circumstances under the here, might warrant reversal.4

ed

However, step intervenor cannot into “[a]n party shoes of the unless the original

intervenor ‘fulfills the re independently ” Arizonans, quirements of Article III.’ (internal 520 U.S. at 64 omitted). Nothing

citation this record

supports a conclusion Wilson and Mid

dlebrooks could do so here. allege

Because have failed to injury requirements which satisfies the III,

of Article I believe this suit should be jurisdiction,

dismissed for lack of and ac- I

cordingly, dissent. George D.

Albert GREEN and Swerda, Petitioners,

K.

GENERAL SERVICES

ADMINISTRATION,

Respondent.

No. 99-3280. Appeals,

United States Court of

Federal Circuit.

July action, majority independent 4. The reference it addressed makes to Martin Wilks, 755, 762-67, mandatory intervention. There issue (1989), a Title VII dis race was no in that case as to whether . helpful crimination case. Wilks is not on the plaintiffs alleged cognizable injury plaintiffs' bring issue of Article III

Case Details

Case Name: Dean Butch Wilson v. John W. Jones, Jr.

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

Date Published: Aug 4, 2000

Citation: 220 F.3d 1297

Docket Number: 99-11145

Court Abbreviation: 11th Cir.