John Dillard v. Baldwin County Commissioners

Althоugh report dial. he was told to superior Ms officer despite order dial detachment, Treasury Muegge a came and for an interview with OSI appear Muegge’s Muegge given su- investigator). left on his own. was Department him attend beverage cigarette instructed and two breaks. pervisor simply breaks, no this Muegge during There is evidence was escorted the interview. by any explic- accompanied instruction was but Auerbach testified that all visitors to employ- Muegge’s implicit it or threat accompanied the OSI detachment were status. building. ment escorts while were inside locked, facility Simpers was Although the Muegge’s in finding key no was needed to leave. testified application is an terrogation was custodial immediately Muegge left after the inter- subjеct to de novo law to the facts arrested until more than view and was not if inquiry determining key review. The eight months later. is whether an interrogation was custodial circumstances, totality of the Under the in that situation would innocent individual leave, Muegge’s position an innocent individual Phillips, F.2d at free to see feel 1360; stop he was free to answer- at 1119. If the indi who was told Moya, 74 F.3d innocent, and at time would being questioned ing questions any were and leave vidual leave, in the directly might told he felt free to do so. A reason- actually was contrary to the absence of evidence able man would not have felt restraint on mat interrogation was non-custodial as a “degree his freedom of movement of may law. There be situations where ter of Phillips, a formаl arrest.” associated with placed suspect’s on a free the restraints Muegge was not in 812 F.2d at 1360. telling the sus dom are so extensive custody during questiomng. his The order not cure pect he was free to leave could granting Muegge’s suppress motion to tes- interview, aspect but custodial during August timony elicited that is not the case here. interrogation, and evidence derived there- from, is questioned was in a se

Muegge necessarily facility,

cure does REVERSED. In Phil interrogation custodial.

make defendants, suspected

lips, one sales, by police

illegal firearm was asked station, police to come to the accom

officer Phillips, 812

panied by other officers. See to the F.2d at 1357. The defendant went DILLARD, Plaintiff-Appellee, John arrest, placed station but was not or locked in a room. See id. handcuffed Brown, Eugene George R. Dale the defendant he The officers never told Johnson, al., et Intеrvenors- leave, though one testified was free even Plaintiffs-Appellants, any at that he was fact free leave This court found the Phil time. See id. COUNTY BALDWIN lips interrogation was non-custodial. See COMMISSIONERS, Defendant- the defendant Phil id. at 1362. Like Appellee. Muegge interrogated was in a secure lips, placed under arrest or facility but never No. 99-12251. significant physically restrained in Appeals, States Court United arguably less way. Muegge’s freedom Eleventh Circuit. as Phillips because it is restricted than 8, 2000. Sept. explicitly he told he could leave sumed was time. characteristics Several interrogation made it non-custo-

Muegge’s Jordan, Algert L. Agrí-

Albert Swanson cola, Jr., Wallace, Jordan, Ratliff & Brandt, AL, Montgomery, Interve- for nors-Plaintiffs-Appellants. Sims, Mobile, AL,

Patrick H. James U. Still, Blacksher, AL, Birmingham, Edward Lawyers’ Rights, Committee for Civil DC, Washington, for Defendant-Appelleе. CARNES, BARKETT Before and MARCUS, Judges. Circuit MARCUS, Judge: Circuit Brown, Eugene Intervenors Dale Johnson, Austin, Jr., and George R. James (the “Intervenors”) appeal Alvin Lee Pitts granting orig- court’s order (the Plaintiffs”) inal Plaintiffs’ “Dillard mo- complaint. tion to dismiss the Intervenors’ sought The Intervenors to intervene as plaintiffs in order to the district changed court’s 1988 remedial order which County the size of the Baldwin Commis- four to seven sion from commissioners remedy a violation of section 2 of order Voting Rights Act. The district court complaint, dismissed the Intervenors’ hold- the Intervenors had stand- ing while ing bring complaint, their failed to upon can be state a claim which relief granted. Because we conclude that In- correctly found bring tervenors had claims, they failed incorrectly held that 1996, the Intervenors moved claim, In October wе reverse the district to state a and pro- for further the case as and remand to intervene court’s order order opinion.1 with this to have the 1988 remedial ceedings sought consistent light Court’s vacated I. Hall, decision Holder v. long protracted 2581, 129 This case has had (1994), Dillard and other history. John v. Ala holdings this Circuit’s White brought American voters suit (11th African Cir.1996), bama, 74 F.3d 1058 Baldwin Commission against the Smith, 39 F.3d 1494 Cir. Nipper system at-large used to alleging that the 1994) ,(en denied, banc), cert. 2 of the violated ‍‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌​​‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​​​​‌‌‌‌​​​​​​‌​‌​​​​​‍section elect its members 1083, 115 amended, Act of Voting Rights complaint, In their the Interve- chal- § At the time of this U.S.C. 1973. alleged by increasing the size of nors County the Baldwin Commission lenge, to seven mem from four Commission at- persons of four elected composed was majority-black a bers order to create from each of fоur numbered large, one district, its “exceede[d] the district court many among one districts. The case was in the authority granted by Congress Vot in the district courts which Dillard suits Act, ing Rights and the Tenth violate[d] ” systems challenged at-large election Amendments.... Com and Eleventh cities, counties, and used dozens asked the plaint at 7. The Intervenors Dil- school boards across Alabama. See modifying to enter an order the in court Educ., County Bd. 686 lard Baldwin junction providing for the establish and (M.D.Ala.1988) (setting forth F.Supp. 1459 of four districting plan composed ment of a Dillard history and evolution of the single-member probate districts with the cases). judge acting as chair of the Commission. County Baldwin Commission con The Intervenors did not seek a return to liability district court or ceded and the at-large of the commissioners. election violation, remedy relief. To dered party opposed Neither the Intervenors’ to district court ordered the Commission motion, to but both reserved membership increase its from four sev challenge legal sufficiency of the Inter- single-member persons en elected from venors’ The district court complaint. majority- in order to a districts ensure motion to inter- granted the Intervenors’ The court noted that black district. subject parties’ to the reservations. vene County’s was population 15.34%of the the Dillard Plaintiffs December expected black and number complaint-in-inter- moved dismiss the the 1990 Dillard v. decrease after census. arguing that Intervenors vention Comm’n, F.Supp. County 694 Baldwin challenge lacked the 1988 Or- (M.D.Ala.1988), by, 839-40 amended complaint tо state a der and that the failed (M.D.Ala.1988), aff'd, F.Supp. granted. upon claim which relief can be (11th Cir.1988) (table). There F.2d 878 18, 1999, grant- the district court Oh June concluded, fore, ma the court “to create a ed the Dillard Plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss. jority-black in the coun voting-age district court held that the Interve- The district ty, of the commission must be the size nors had increased to seven.” Id. at 843. The injunction “insofar as claim that the remedy court’s created a district with the court’s implementation defendants’ over 63% population expected black be rights.” Or- remedial order violates 4, 2000, compan- Voting Rights changed the August decided the size was, 1. On we one, Minor, ion case to this Wilson v. there- Commission and Dallas fore, (11th Cir.2000). In Wilson we F.3d 1297 impermissible controlling Su- injunction by this held that the 1988 ordered precеdent. preme remedy Court to a section 2 violation of the However, concluded, 737, 742, court der at 6. (1995);

the Intervenors failed to state a claim L.Ed.2d University South granted. can upon which relief Accord- Co., Alabama American Tobacco court, ing to the district the Intervenors Cir.1999). case, In this a claim under failed to state the Tenth and Appellees2 argued that the Inter- rights Eleventh Amendments because the venors pursue lack their claims deprivation they was the result of and that the district court’s dismissal of authority, state rather than federal complaint the Intervenors’ for failure to they failed to state a claim under section 2 state a claim should be affirmed on this Voting Rights Act because did ground. alternative allege not that the 1988 resulted To satisfy the constitutional re in vote discrimination on account of race. quirements of standing, plaintiff must The court also concluded that Fed.R.Civ.P. showings: make three provide proper 60 did not vehicle for the First, plaintiff must have suffered an injunc- Intervenors to seek relief from the “injury in fact”—an invasion of a legally tion. (a) protected interest which is concrete II. (b) particularized, “actual or imminent, ‘conjectural’ or ‘hypotheti- We review the district or court’s ” Second, cal.’ there must be a der of causal uphold dismissal de novo and will only if it connection between the appears beyond injury dismissal doubt and the that allegations complaint, when complained conduct injury of—the has viewed in the light most favorable to the “fairly to be ... to the chal- trаce[able] plaintiff, upon do not state a claim which defendant, lenged action of the and not granted. relief can be See Southeast Flor result the independent th[e] [of] ac- Cable, Fla., County, ida Inc. v. Martin 173 of party tion some third before (11th 1332, Cir.1999). F.3d 1335 n. 5 Third, court.” “likely,” must be as jurisdictional Standing is a issue which is opposed merely “speculative,” to that also reviewed de Engineering novo. See injury will be “redressed a favor- Contractors Assn. South Florida Inc. v. able decision.” 895, Metropolitan County, Dade 122 F.3d Lujan Wildlife, 504 U.S. Defenders of (11th Cir.1997), denied, 903 cert. 523 U.S. 555, 560-61, 2130, 2136, 112 119 S.Ct. 1004, 1186, 118 S.Ct. 140 L.Ed.2d 317 (1992) (internal L.Ed.2d 351 citations and omitted). footnote See also Church v. Huntsville, (11th 1332, 30 F.3d Cir. A. 1994) (quoting Valley Forge Christian Col Indeed, standing is a threshold lege Separation v. Americans United for jurisdictional question which must be ad State, 472, 464, Church and prior independent dressed to and 752, 758, (1982)); 70 L.Ed.2d 700 party’s merits of a claims. See Steel Co. v. Evans, (11th 1118, Harris v. Env’t, 83, Citizens a Better for Cir.1994). 1003, 1016, 118 S.Ct. claim Appellees that the district court (1998); Assoc. Equip. Florida Med. in finding erred that the Intervenors had (11th Apfel, Dealers v. 194 F.3d standing Article III the 1988 Cir.1999); Co., EF Hutton & Inc. v. Had injunction. (11th Cir.1990). Appellees’ argument first ley, We particular Appellants’ standing bring obliged standing to consider sua say sponte parties They even if the have not their Tenth Amendment claim. raised Hays, standing the issue. See United States v. 515 that cannot Appellants have Appellees in this case are both the Dillard Defendants. sion Plaintiffs and the Baldwin Commis- 289, 297, Union, 442 un- claim Amendment assert their Tenth (1979)). We held bring some standing to they establish less statutory claim. had as constitutional that the SCLA also claim Second, broadly, Appellees and more mеmbers. Id. of its representative alleged have not the Intervenors footnote, we addressed whether In a in- particularized sufficiently concrete bring a claim plaintiffs Finally, standing. Appel- jury to establish We ex- the Tenth Amendment. law, case lees Circuit’s assert claims, that, types as with other plained that the Intervenors have suggests have to assert would to establish injury an sufficient if claim Amendment a Tenth overruled subse- standing, has been suffered a concrete could show rulings. are not Supreme Court We quent challenged activi- injury resulting from the argument address each persuaded and that “this court has said ty. observed We turn. that, injury injury or threatened if before First, argue private Appellees exists, have private parties ” standing to assert plaintiffs cannot challenges.... Tenth Amendment assert except in cir claims Tenth Amendment Gas, (citing n. 6 Atlanta Id. at 1034 they establish some cumstances where 16). then reiterated F.2d at 1368 n. We is redressable injury which particularized injury an plaintiffs had shown or statuto other constitutional under some establish to advance sufficient rely support for ry provision. Appellees just Amendment claims their Tenth Assn., Inc. v. Liberties on Seniors Civil standing to assert they had established Cir.1992) (11th Kemp, 965 F.2d 1030 Id. their other claims. Energy, Light Dep’t Co. Atlanta Gas Gas, gas distribu petitioner In Atlanta ‍‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌​​‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​​​​‌‌‌‌​​​​​​‌​‌​​​​​‍Cir.1982). Neither F.2d 1359 brought pre-enforcement companies tion their contention. supports case against provisions various challenge Seniors, plaintiffs, the individual resi- In challenged petitioners Act. The Fuel Use per- for older housing complex of a dents the constitutionality of the Act under Civil Liberties Asso- sons and the Seniors Clause, the Tenth Amendment Commerce (SCLA), challenged ciation Fifth Clause of the and the Due Process Act, Housing to the Fair amendments had petitioners held that Amendment. We against prohibited discrimination which assert their Commerce standing to both The individual families with children. claims and and Tenth Amendment Clause housing complex in plaintiffs lived a claims on the merits. As these considered age under the of 16 prohibited children claim, ex Tenth Amendment we for their complex, in and the SCLA living from “may private petitioners that the plained elderly people of represented rights objections constitutional based make occupancy of their residences. peaceful long as provisions so [thе Act’s] Seniors, Plaintiffs 965 F.2d at 1032. See requisite injury in fact and they show antidiscrim- the familial status argued that in ques relation to the action its causal Housing the Fair provision ination Gas, n. 16. 666 F.2d at 1368 tion.” Atlanta First, Fifth, and Tenth their violated injury in fact exists or concluded “that We Id. at 1033. rights. Amendment in this case.” Id. likely to occur plain- question We first addressed nevertheless contend Appellees claims, their standing tiffs’ to assert Tenth plaintiffs’ standing to assert private plaintiffs the individual we held that and Atlanta Amendment claims Seniors “there exists ‘a realistic standing because on their contingent somehow Gas injury as a danger sustaining a direct other con- having standing to assert some Housing opera- Act’s] [Fair result of the ” There is statutory claim. stitutional (quot- Id. at tion or enforcement.’ Farm, cases, however, nothing in either of these Nat’l ing Workers Babbitt United Indeed, reversed, support argument. our We making clear that in- precedent case makes clear that in order tervenors injury had suffered an sufficient- bring to establish a Tenth ly concrete not permit them to claim, just Amendment as for intervene the action but give also to claim, plaintiff must suf- show them standing pursue the action on injury fered an fact caused the chal- appeal. explained: We Moreover, if lenged private action. even a The intervenors sought to im vindicate standing to assert a Tenth portant personal interests in maintaining contingent upon Amendment claim were system the election governed having standing its to assert some other political power, exercise of a demoсrati claim, statutory constitutional or In- cally system established that the district tervenors would still have to as- such, they court’s order had altered. As sert their Tenth Amendment claim in this tangible actual prospective they case because have shown injury merely and did not challenge un assert a claim under section 2 of the Vot- lawful conduct in gen the abstract. See ing Rights Act. pp. See discussion infra erally, e.g., Lujan v. Wild Defenders of 1276-80. 555, 574-76, 112 life, (1992). More Next, Appellees argue that the In over, reject appellees’ we contention that tervenors lack only nonjusticiable intervenors had they because have not al generalized grievances simply because leged sufficiently particu concrete and they asserted widely interests shared injury. Appellees essentially larized As v. Wright, others. Allen concede, however, our ruling Meek 756-60, 3315, 3327-29, Fla., Metropolitan County, Dade 985 F.2d (11th Cir.1993), holds otherwise. Meek, 1480; 985 F.2d at see also Clark v. Meek, we affirmed County, Putnam residents to in an action participate chal- Cir.1999) (holding that six African Ameri- lenging constitutionality of the election can voters were entitled to intervene to scheme to subject. were a court single-member-dis- defend ordered plaintiffs, Hispanic black and residents of trict voting plan had an inter- County, Dade challenged voting scheme est stake the action and that interest in eight which the County Commissioners adequately represented by was not the eight were selected from districts but each action). existing in defendants the commissioner was elected at-lаrge. The plaintiffs argued at-large that the Appellees election contend that Meek and scheme violated section Voting standing 2 of the Clark do not answer the question Rights County, Act. Two residents of in Dade this case because the intervenors in registered voters, who were sought to in- both and Meek came into the action Clark tervene to defend the existing only seeking election as defendants to maintain the scheme. The district court in- quo required denied the status and were not therefore holding tervenors’ motions that satisfy higher standing their inter- to require ests were identical applicable parties asserting to the defendants’ and ments adequately represented by them. After a claims for Appellees relief. are correct triаl, bench the district court ruled that party seeking that we have held that a 2, the election scheme already existing justicia did violate section intervene into an and the defendants not appeal controversy satisfy decided ble need not the re quirements decision. The intervenors filed new long par as the motions to in pursue intervene order to ties established before the appeal. Thornburgh, defendants’ The district court de- court. See Chiles v. (11th Cir.1989) 1197, explanation. nied these motions without (holding “that a rely for Appellees preme Court decisions. not dem- intervene need seeking to party rulings Supreme in addition on the Court’s support has that he onstrate of Rule 24 as English, 520 U.S. requirements meeting Arizonans for Official and justiciable case 170, exists a lоng 1055, as there 43, 137 L.Ed.2d 117 S.Ct. already in parties controversy between 811, 117 Byrd, 521 U.S. S.Ct. Raines lawsuit”)- Meek, But, we found (1997), 2312, United 138 L.Ed.2d only had the the intervenors 737, 115 Hays, 515 U.S. S.Ct. States v. dispute but also intervene None of L.Ed.2d 635 of their interest standing, because had cases, however, Appellees’ furthers these inter- personal “vindicat[ing] important cause. Meek, pursue ests,” at 985 F.2d English In Arizonans for Official appeal after the themselves on the case Yniguez, F. Maria-Kelly employee, state “It is not to. original defendants decided Governor, Attorney its the State and sued intervenor that when an well-settled General, Department and Director on whose side he party and the appeals seeking an of Administration not, must the intervenor does intervened of a state constitu- against enforcement in order to continue demonstrate making English the Communications, tional amendment Cable the suit.” Cox district States, language. The court 1181 state’s official Inc. v. United Charles, (11th Cir.1993) (citing Diamond v. unconstitutional declared the amendment 1697, 1706, 54, 68, 106 S.Ct. ap- decided not to governor and the state (1986)). Arizonans See also general, as well attorney The peal. Arizona, 520 U.S. English v. English for Official Commit- as Arizonans for Official 1055, 1067, 43, 65, 137 L.Ed.2d Park, (AOE) and its Chairman Robert tee (1997) intervenor (stating that “[a]n sought to sponsors, the amendment’s inter- original into the step cannot shoes to defend the amendment vene order independently unless the intervenor party denied their The district court appeal. ”) III’ requirements of Article ‘fulfills Ninth Circuit concluded motions. The Diamond, at (quoting pro- and Park had AOE 1706-07). appellants, but affirmed the pаrty ceed as Meek, therefore, we not found In ruling that the court’s amendment intervenors, subject to as voters was unconstitutional. scheme, satisfied challenged election vacated both the Court for intervention requirements opinions appeals court of also, necessarily, Fed.R.Civ.P. Yniguez resigned holding that because satisfied the re- they independently the state while the position her from with standing. III for Article quirements case had appeal was on become case Moreover, were we to hold we noted that dicta, expressed moot. otherwise, to conclude “we would forced whether AOE and “grave doubts” about lack stand- also most of III to under Article standing Park had many by the ing, a conclusion foreclosed of the amеndment. pursue appellate review voters have been in which individual cases 520 U.S. at English, Arizonans practices.” election challenge permitted for Official Park 66, AOE and had 117 S.Ct. at Meek, (citing Whitcomb 985 F.2d at 1480 1858, proponents Chavis, that as initiative’s argued 91 S.Ct. Carr, (1971); in Baker v. interest de- they quasi-legislative had a constitutionality of mea- fending (1962)). The Court they sponsored. noted sure “recognized state that while has essentially recognizing Finally, standing to contest a legislators have deci- in this standing question controls the Meek holding a statute unconstitution- sion case, that Meek was Appellees suggest legislators to if state law authorizes al light subsequent in Su- wrongly decided interests[,]” action, represent the State’s AOE this and indeed both Houses ac- and its members were not elected repre tively oppose their suit. sentatives and the was “aware of Court no Raines, 521 U.S. at 117 S.Ct. at 2322. appointing

Arizona law sponsors initiative As with Arizonans English, for Official agents people as of Arizona to de the fact Congressmembers in fend, officials, ‍‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌​​‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​​​​‌‌‌‌​​​​​​‌​‌​​​​​‍in public lieu of the constitu Raines did not have standing tionality of initiatives made law of the the Act they had not been harmed State.” Id. at 117 S.Ct. at 1068. The individuals, as as members of an Court also cast doubt on AOE’s assertion institution they which were not authorized representational or associational stand represent, light sheds no on whether the ing noting that requisite “[t]he concrete case, voters in this who are individually injury to AOE members is apparent.” subject to and affected the election 66, 117 Id. at S.Ct. at 1068. scheme challenge, have standing. question of whether AOE and Park Finally, Hays, Supreme standing had sponsors particular as the held appellees lacked standing to legislation represent the state’s interest challenge a Louisiana redistricting plan in defending that legislation provides no when guidance appellees on whether none of the voters who live within resided in the governing unit standing have to chal- district that was the focus of their racial an lenge allegedly illegal voting scheme to gerrymander Hays, claim. 515 U.S. at subject by virtue of their 739, 115 at 2433. The Court empha- Moreover, noted, residence. as we have sized, however, that voters who lived in the the Court in Arizonans En- for Official allegedly gerrymandered district would glish did not even resolve the injury have suffered an sufficient to estab- issue because of its conclusion standing. Court, lish According to the case was moot. Id. plaintiff “Where a racially resides Raines, individual members of Con- gerrymandered district the plaintiff [ ] has gress brought an action challenging the equal been denied treatment because of constitutionality of the Line Item Veto Act. legislature’s criteria, reliance on racial The district court found that the therefore has to challenge had Article III standing based on their the legislature’s Hays, action.” claim that the Act diluted their I Article 744-45, (citations 115 S.Ct. at 2436 omit- voting power. The district court then ted). Hays bright-line set forth a granted plaintiffs’ summary motion for rule for a particular class of alleging cases judgment holding that the Act constituted illegal racial gerrymandering respect with an unconstitutional delegation legislative plaintiff districts: if the lives power to the President. The racially district, gerrymandered she appeal Court took direct of the case as not, if standing; has she does she must provided for the Act and vacated the produce specific evidence of harm other judgment of the holding composition than the fact that the of her the plaintiffs did not have might have been different were it bring suit. explained: The Court not for the gerrymandering of the other [Ajppellees injury no ’ district. Hays holding regarding narrow ], themselves individuals the institu- [ standing in gerrymandering context is injury they wholly tional allege is ab- entirely consistent with our broader hold- ], stract and widely dispersed and their [ ing respondents Meek that attempt to litigate dispute at this to defend the election scheme to which

time and in contrary this form is to they subject wеre when that entire elec- experience. historical attach We some tion scheme had been importance challenged illegal. as to the fact that appellees cases, have not been In both represent point authorized to the essential remains their respective Congress Houses of in that one in directly who resides the area 1280 n voting population.” in the allegedly illegal proportion

affected the by 1973(b). that challenge § to scheme has U.S.C. way in no inconsistent Hays is scheme. that The district court held the Interve- holding our in Meek.

with to a claim section nors failed under squarely is controlled The case at hand § 2 a valid claim “[t]o make Meek, in holding and Meek by,this Court’s Voting Act ... Rights plaintiff- of the the explicitly оverruled nor has neither been mini- allege, would have to at a interveners by the implicitly undermined mum, re- that the court’s remedial order in Court’s decisions Arizonans for Official against in them sults vote-discrimination result, Raines, Hays.3 we English, or As a race, color, membership of or in on account conclude, bound Meek and to are to follow minority. language See 42 U.S.C.A. did, the Interve- as the district court that 1973(a). complaint-in-interven- § the But in to claims nors have assert their of allegation tion contains no racial dis- Hogan, this case. United States See kind.” 14-15. crimination of Order at Cir.1993) (ex F.2d does, complaint The Intervenors’ firmly the plaining that “it is established however, allege the in that succeeding rule of this Circuit each tentionally the size Bald increased panel by holding the of thе first bound and the win Commission redrew law, to unless panel address an issue of lines create specifically district order to banc, holding and until that is overruled en ¶ majority Complaint, black district. Court”). by the Supreme or

According Complaint: to the B. rejected a remedy pro- The Court Commission, by posed the which would turn the the Inter- We now to merits of only the have eliminated numbered argue venors’ claims. Intervenors place existing system, feature ruling the district court erred ordered, objection over the of further they failed to state a claim under section Commission, Act, the an increase in the size Rights the the Tenth Voting of Amendment, only Amendment, Noting of the Commission. or the Eleventh County’s population to ruling and also erred in failed 15.34% of the black, satisfy requirements for reliеf under population 14% of the 60(b). Fed.R.Civ.P. to expected present be after the 1990 census, that, said: “It is clear Voting pro- Rights Section majority-black voting-age to create a “No voting qualification prereq- vides: or county, size of the standard, practice, or uisite or commission must be increased to seven. procedure imposed applied shall be Thus, an is essential vindicat- increase any State in a man- political subdivision rights county’s ing Sec. abridge- in a ner results denial or strong black Con- [T]he citizens.... right ment of citizen of the of Sec. 2—that the gressional command race or United States to vote on account of political process open 1973(a). blacks § color....” 42 U.S.C. Section equally—directs that court whites “[N]othing section es- continues: request plaintiffs’ accede to of a tablishes a members protected equal size of commission be increased to class elected numbers altogether challenged 3. Our in Meek is conso as affected decision voters grant pursue holdings judicial with scheme to the case nant of other circuits election ing challenge independently appeal); election Or United Jewish voters Wilson, subject. Williamsburgh, ganizations See Inc. v. schemes to which Citizens, (2d Cir.1975) League (holding Latin 520-21 United American Clements, Council that white voters had as voters No. 4434 (5th Cir.1993) (finding legislative redistricting judges who New York’s drawn). plan illegally racially Article III intervened as defendants had County adequately seven.” v. Baldwin nors [Dillard stated a claim for a (M.D.Ala. Comm’n, F.Supp. section violation of Voting Rights 1988) By increasing the size of the ]. Act. Commission, provided the court a dis held, The district court also population trict with a expected black Appellees and the argue appeal, be over 63% 1990. Id. the Intervenors failed to state a claim un ¶ Moreover, the Complaint, Complaint 18. § der 42 U.S.C. 1983 for violations alleges that the Intervenors have been Tenth and Eleventh Amendments because by racially-based hurt in the increase are challenging Intervenors the actions of the County size Commission. See Com- of state actors while the Tenth and Elev ¶ plaint, (alleging that “Plaintiff-Inter- enth only protect Amendments against de residents, citizens, are venors privations of rights committed by federal qualified County, electors of Baldwin Ala- According actors.4 to the district court: adversely by Each bama. is affected “The allege interveners deprivations of in the increase number of members of the rights by secured the tenth and elev Commission”). ‍‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌​​‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​​​​‌‌‌‌​​​​​​‌​‌​​​​​‍enth amendments to the United States Nipper, This Court has made clear in Constitution, but none of the defendants may that a not White possibly could deprive any them of such remedy by changing a section violation rights. The tenth and eleventh amend county Nip- the size of a commission. protect against ments certain exercises of an per, black voters and association of power; they give do not individuals attorneys challenged system black federal any rights against the exercise of state at-large judges elections used to elect authority.” at Order Fourth Florida’s Judicial Circuit Court. appellants The remedy asked court to the. unpersuaded by We are the dis by creating section violation trict logic. court’s The district court ability subdistricts to ensure their to elect seems to conclude that because federal judges Nipper, black of their choice. See court being implemented is Court, sitting 1496-97. This en imposed by a body state the Bald —here banc, appellants denied relief on the win activity Commission—the be ground sought relief ing challenged necessarily state becomes

improper. clearly We stated that under activity and activity state alone. We dis Holder, holding Court’s agree. being challenged What is here is may “federal courts not mandate as a sec- the allegedly by unconstitutional decision 2 remedy political tion that a state or federal district court to alter the size of a subdivision alter the size of its elected governing local body. Activity performed 1532; White, bodies.” Id. at see also to a federal court order is not (same). pursuant F.3d at 1072 By alleging transformed into exclusive exercise of subjected to, being are and their power state power being by, simply performed is illegal affected an elec- by plainly obeying tion scheme that was state actors who are created be- federal race, injunction. cause of or on account Interve- court See Printz v. United power 4. The Tenth Amendment limits the courts. See Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe of powers Idaho, 261, 267, Federal Government and reserves 117 S.Ct. States, to the states. See New Yorkv. United (1997). Eleventh L.Ed.2d 144, 156-57, 2408, 2418, judicial power states: "The Amendment The Tenth Amend the United shall States not be construed to powers delegated ment states: "The equity, extend to suit in law or com Constitution, by prohib United States nor prosecuted against menced one of the Unit States, by ited it to reserved to the State, ed States Citizens of another respectively, people.” States or to the Subjects Foreign Citizens or State.” Const, amend. X. The Eleventh Amendment U.S. Const. amend. XI. protects sovereign immunity in federal (albeit original case 925-26, under the dent action States, (1997) number) entirely new claims from bringing 2365, 2879-80, by the Dillard previously the Tenth Amendment asserted clear that those (making makes govern language of Rule 60 “commandeering” state Plaintiffs. The prohibits regulatory сlear, however, may sought administer federal that relief be ments to Dep’t well independent Peel v. Florida action as programs); through an Cir. original 1081-85 in the action. Transp., by a motion filed 1979) denying 60(b) on sum (considering, but rule (providing “[t]his Rule See Amendment chal judgment, a Tenth mary of a court to power limit the does not a requiring court order lenge to a federal to relieve independent entertain an action employ order”).5 a former agency Moreover, to reinstate from ... party a[n] a Reemploy to the Veterans’ pursuant ee Rule court is correct that while the district case, because, the Rights ment provide not itself a substantive 60 does out power war Congress’ exercise of action, already we have found that cause of with the state’s weighed the interference have stated substantive the Intervenors determination). shield fed We cannot self challenging 1988 in- of action causes constitutional chal court orders from eral therefore, conclude, junction. We the federal court’s lenge simply because with provide the Intervenors Rule 60 does by offi being implemented local orders are relief tool to seek proper procedural cials. injunction. from argue Intervenors also The C. ruling the district court erred ask that this Finally, the Intervenors under Fed. have a for relief did not basis order the modification Court itself 60(b) provides: 60. Rule “On R.Civ.P. single- for four injunction provide just, are upon such terms as motion seven, and to districts rather than member party’s or a may party reliеve a the court the case to the district court remand judgment, final from a legal representative development supervise to have it order, following for the rea proceeding or districting We decline 5) appropriate plan. longer equitable ... it is no sons: invitation, however, there because judgment prospective should have remaining limit that are best addressed This rule does not issues application.... example, an inde For by of a court to entertain first the district court. power from a party action to relieve a whether pendent court should consider order, The proceeding....” judgment, predi- the fact that the 1988 ruled that the Intervenors intentional discrimina- findings cated on under Rule 60 be could not seek relief any impact has by legislature tion by only,” motion operates cause “Rule 60 Holder, affect this Nipper, how and White define the Rule 60 does not Holder, and White Nipper, case. While for va grounds law as to the substantive changing make clear that size “ ‘merely prescribes cating judgments, was an im- County Commission Baldwin re practice in obtain proceedings violation, remedy for a section proper ” Advisory (quoting at 11 lief.’ Order such a reme- do not address whether cases 60). Notes, Fed.R.Civ.P. Comm. remedy might appropriate have been dy the Fourteenth Amendment. motion, a violation of a Rule 60 filing Instead of re- Indeed, in Holder the essentially indepen- filed an Intervenors the action in which motion in the court and in Advisory to the 1946 Committee Notes proce- judgment to Rule 60 also make clear was rendered. The Amendment indepen- seeking through option an independent relief a new or action dure is According "Two to the Notes: dent action. judgment, action which obtain relief from judg- types procedure to from obtain relief may begun may in the court pro- specified the rules as it is ments are judgment.” rendered the procedure posed to amend them. One appeals manded the case to the court of to that their to vote has been denied or color, plaintiffs’ consider the Fourteenth Amend- abridged on account of race or Holder, 885, ment claim. 512 U.S. at See They allege do not that they personally 114 at 2588.6 S.Ct. . suffer vote dilution because there are sev- commissioners, en instead of four or that will not out

Accordingly, we reach expanded commission size in summarily modify injunction. In- 1988 way impairs equal opportunity to stead, we reverse the district court’s order participate fully in political process dismissing complaint-in- the Intervenors’ elect the candidate of their choice. intervention and remand the case to the only allegation to proceedings majority district court for further con- which the opin- opinion. points ion is the sistent with this Intervenors’ assertion intentionally “the district court in- REVERSED AND REMANDED. creased size of the Baldwin BARKETT, Judge, concurring Circuit Commission and redrew the district lines specially: specifically in order to majority create a Maj. op. black district.” at 1280. This Circuit, precedent Based on the of this I sufficient, view, allegation my majority’s concur in the conclusion that establish a claim under the Voting Rights proceed this case be remanded for further Act. I ings. While have reservations about Light Dep’t

whether Atlanta Gas & Co. v. (11th 1359, Energy, 666 F.2d n. 16 Cir.) denied, 836, cert.

81, (1982), and Seniors Civil 1030, Kemp, Liberties Ass’n v. MARIETTA, CITY OF Plaintiff- (11th Cir.1992), n. were correct in Appellant, saying private plaintiffs claims, to assert Tenth Amendment I agree Appellees argu foreclose TRANSPORTATION, INC., CSX regard.1 ments Defendant-Appellee. it Although does not make a difference No. 98-8436. proceeding, the outcome of this I think majority’s finding additional Appeals, United States Court of the Intervenors state a claim under Sec- Eleventh Circuit.

tion 2 the Voting Rights Act is errone- 8, Sept. Having ous. Complaint ‍‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌​​‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​​​​‌‌‌‌​​​​​​‌​‌​​​​​‍reviewed the Intervention, Litchfield, R. Douglas Haynie, Haynie I do not & believe that con- PC, Marietta, GA, Sumner, requisite tains Walter Edwin allegations for Nixon, asserting Voting Rights Angela Georgia Municipal claim under the M. As- soc., Atlanta, GA, Act.2 The Intervenors Plaintiff-Appellant. have not for Sullivan, example Group, 6. This F.Supp. is meant to illustrate not limit P.A. v. scope (W.D.N.C.1989), of the district court's review. aff'd, 929 F.2d 693 Cir.1991). T.V.A., 1. But see Tennessee Elec. Power Co. v. 83 L.Ed. 543 Voting Rights provides: 2. Section of the (1939) (observing passing that "absent the voting qualification prerequisite "No or officers,” private parties states or their "have standard, practice, procedure or any question no to raise imposed applied by any shall be State or Amendment.”); see [Tenth] also Nance political subdivision in a manner re- EPA, (9th Cir.1981) ("inso- abridgement sults in denial or designed far Tenth Amendment is states,” any citizen of the United States to vote on protect qua the interest of states private party "may seriously account of race or color....” U.S.C. 1973(a). questioned”); Family § Metrolina Practice

Case Details

Case Name: John Dillard v. Baldwin County Commissioners

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

Date Published: Sep 8, 2000

Citation: 225 F.3d 1271

Docket Number: 99-12251

Court Abbreviation: 11th Cir.