PARKRIDGE 6, LLC; Dulles Corridor Users Group, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; Ray Lahood, Secretary of Transportation; Peter M. Rogoff, Administrator, Federal Transit Administration; Victor M. Mendez, Administrator of FHWA; Roberto Fonseca-Martinez, Division Administrator of FHWA, Virginia Division; Sean T. Connaughton, Secretary of Transportation; James Bennett, President and CEO Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 10-1443
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
March 21, 2011
Submitted: Feb. 23, 2011.
2011 WL 941595 | 420 F. App‘x 265
Appellant claims that the district court continued the trial without him present and therefore deprived him of the right to present a defense. However, the court did allow Appellant to testify on his own behalf and present a defense. Because he was proceeding pro se, the district court afforded Appellant great latitude in the presentation of his evidence; however, when Appellant became belligerent and disrespectful to the court during the conference on jury instructions, he was removed from the courtroom. The district court then gave Appellant numerous opportunities to return to the courtroom for closing arguments. Appellant refused to return unless the court dismissed the charge against him and awarded him $50,000 in damages. The court also gave Appellant the opportunity to participate remotely, and he refused to do so.
While an accused “has a constitutional right to be present in the courtroom at every stage of his trial, [] he may waive that right.” Diaz v. United States, 223 U.S. 442, 32 S.Ct. 250, 56 L.Ed. 500 (1912).
We have considered Appellant‘s remaining claims and find no merit to them. Accordingly, we affirm Appellant‘s conviction and his 120-month sentence. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.
Before MOTZ, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Appellants Parkridge 6, LLC (“Parkridge“) and the Dulles Corridor Users Group (“Users Group“) filed this lawsuit against the United States Department of Transportation (“USDOT“), Ray LaHood, in his official capacity as United States
Finding the complaint fatally flawed, the district court dismissed the suit with prejudice. The court concluded that Appellants lacked standing to bring suit, that many of their claims were barred by sovereign immunity, and that others failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. We affirm.
We review de novo the district court‘s order granting a
Appellants argue that alternatives to the Project, which they claim could establish faster travel speeds and obviate the need for collecting tolls, were not considered. They maintain that failure to select an alternative to the Project has subjected them to economic damages in the form of tolls and taxes that they would not otherwise have been required to pay. Appellants also cite “impaired access to National Airport and less than optimum access to Dulles Airport” as a basis for standing.
Our jurisdiction is circumscribed by the standing requirement of
- (1) [the party] has suffered an “injury in fact” that is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical;
- (2) the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant; and
- (3) it is likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.
Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 180-81, 120 S.Ct. 693, 145 L.Ed.2d 610 (2000). The prudential component of standing encompasses three additional constraints: first, generalized grievances shared by all or a large class of citizens do not warrant judicial review; second, a plaintiff must generally assert his own legal rights and may only assert rights of third-parties in specialized circumstances; and third, the grievance must fall within the zone of interests the statute or constitutional guarantee protects or regulates. Bishop v. Bartlett, 575 F.3d 419, 423 (4th Cir. 2009).
We find that, with the exception of Count Eight, Appellants cannot establish standing to bring suit on any of the counts in the complaint. The injuries Appellants
Count Eight alleges a violation of Virginia‘s Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA“). Appellants have standing as to this count because they need only show that they sought and were denied specific records. See Pub. Citizen v. U.S. Dep‘t of Justice, 491 U.S. 440, 449-50, 109 S.Ct. 2558, 105 L.Ed.2d 377 (1989). This count is directed against the Commonwealth of Virginia and the MWAA. The claim fails as to Virginia because sovereign immunity does not permit federal courts to hear a suit against state officials on the basis of state law. See Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 106, 104 S.Ct. 900, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984); see also id. at 100 n. 9, 104 S.Ct. 900 (noting a state does not waive sovereign immunity in federal court by consenting to suit in its own courts). The claim fails against the MWAA because Virginia‘s FOIA1 only reaches Virginia public bodies. See
Because the complaint must be dismissed in its entirety for the reasons discussed above, we decline to reach Appellants’ other arguments.2
Accordingly, we affirm the district court‘s judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.