*1 Certainly any Clark’s character. error plain.
was not there er- summary, is no reversible
ror, judgment and the of conviction AF-
FIRMED. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, INC., SYSTEMS,
REDFLEX TRAFFIC
City Knoxville, Tennessee, Of Bill Mayor
Haslam of Knox
ville, Tennessee, Coun
cil, Systems, Inc., Redflex Traffic d/b/a
www.Photonotice.Com, Michael L.
Sullivan, Catlett, Joseph Gordon Ber
nard, Persons, Defen Unknown
dants-Appellees.
No. 08-5545. Appeals,
United States Court of Circuit.
Sixth
Argued: June 2009.
Decided Filed: Oct.
MARTIN, J., the opinion delivered SUTTON, J., court, joined. in which the RYAN, 621-22), delivered (pp. J. separate concurring opinion.
OPINION JR., MARTIN, F. BOYCE Circuit Judge. City the of Knoxville entered Sys- Redflex Traffic
into a contract with tems, photographs for to take Inc. cameras run An оrdinance lights. of cars that red that the be sent notice of provides owner “civil pen- the violation and assessed $50 legwork alty.” Redflex handles the for issuing manages tickets. It installs and employees pho- review the cameras its ran a if someone red tos determine did, plate light. If and their license visible, incriminating photos are sent Department to the Knoxville Police where them and an officer is view send registered citation to ear’s owner. Inc., Williams Redflex Traffic 3:06- cv-400, 782540, *2-3, 2008 2008 WL U.S. Jr., Gulley Gulley, L. ARGUED: Gerald (E.D.Tenn. 22723, *7 Dist. LEXIS Mar. Knoxville, Tennessee, Oldham, PLLC, for 2008). Kennerly, Kelley, Appellant. Michael S. Plaintiff car went Williams’s P.C., Knoxville, Montgomery Finley, & intersection, through photographed an Tennessee, mills, City Eugene Ronald Of Redflex, and, thereafter, shortly she Knoxville, Ten- Department, knoxville Law citation, prima citation. received a This nessee, Swanson, Sheppeard, Charles W. violation, of a her gave facie evidence three Knoxville, PLC, Ten- Mynatt, Swansоn & fine, options: pay complete an $50 nessee, for ON BRIEF: Ger- Appellees. non-responsibility affidavit of that she was Jr., PLLC, Gulley, Oldham, Gulley ald L. (and name actual driver driv- Tennessee, Hamilton, Knoxville, B. David er), or schedule Knoxville Office, Knoxvillе, Norwood Law Tennes- Court. The citation stated she see, Kelley, Michael S. Appellant. scheduled a she would be assessed P.C., Kennerly, Montgomery Finley, & “court fee.” $67.50 Tennessee, Mills, Knoxville, Ronald E. action, filed instead took and later Law Knox- Department, of Knoxville contending federal suit Swanson, Tennessee, ville, Charles W. challenges uses to hear PLC, Mynatt, Sheppeard, Swanson & imposition of fines violate federal Tennessee, Knoxville, Appellees. Constitutions, as well as and Tennessee MARTIN, RYAN, The district court Before: Tennessee state-law. SUTTON, Judges. appeal, for lack On Circuit dismissed First, contends that she has in view she could fine by mail or fee,” and reas- apparent “processing person. If that option, she chose proce- provided Knoxville’s serts citation that no record of the dures, supplemental state- along with violation would kept be sent to her *3 law claims. company department insuranсe or the Second, motor vehicles. Williams was giv- argument, parties At oral made a option en the of completing an “Affidavit of key agreement: pro- that Knoxville would Non-Responsibility” stating that she was a hearing. Williams with al- vide driving her it car went through when though standing challenge Williams has (while light naming the red who was driv- improper the ticket itself because of the ing). option This provided also boxes for “fee,” city’s her a agreement give the owner to indicate had sold their renders her to the car or if their car plate or license had been hearing’s procedures unripe, we AFFIRM Third, stolen. given was op- Williams district dismissal. court’s
tion of scheduling a at Knoxville I. City Court. This option further stated hearing you schedule a “[t]o will be Knoxville, Tennessee enacted the “Auto- a assessed court fee of $67.50.” ordinance, mated Enforcement” This apparently was some kind of mis- 17-210, § permit a Code traffic control print: defendants vigorously contend that premised system photographs on of cars no such in “processing fee” is fact imposed that run red To lights. reality, make it a for requesting a But hearing. there is no in December signed 2005 Knoxville con- debate that this printed clearly was оn the Redflex, tract with spe- codefendant which citation. pro- cializes in such photo enforcement
grams. designates The contract Redflex ticket, Williams did not respond contractor,” an “independent and the com- and later filed in this suit federal court pany’s employees install and monitor the against, others, among Redflex and the cameras, violators, identify potential and City of Knoxville. complaint Her alleged a photos to the send Knoxvillе Police De- variety claims, of state and federal includ An partment. supposed officer to view (but to) ing not limited violations of her snapshot a signed and send citation to procedural process rights due under the registered the car’s owner. keeps Redflex Fourteenth to the Amendment federal con more than proceeds. 50% of tickets’ stitution, and of state violations constitu statutory tional and The law.1 defendants through
Williams’s car went
an intersec-
summary judgmеnt.
moved for
August
tion
Redflex identified it
dis
though stating
trict
having
light,
run a
its view
red
and she received
court—
Redflex,
though directly
program
from
“may
“Orwellian” and
citation—
only
containing
a facsimile of an
violate U.S. or
officer’s
Tennessee constitutiоnal”
signature.
granted
It stated
she violated the
motion to
defendants’
dis
law—
ordinance,
local
and its
gave
ground
instructions
miss on the
that Williams lacked
her
three rather
options.
Redflex,
3:06-cv-400,
unattractive
2008
full,
(1)
Act;
Complaint alleged:
1.
her
Liаbility
constitu-
under
Governmental Tort
statutory
and
(5)
(6)
tional
violations under 42
conspiracy;
liability;
civil
vicarious
1988; (2)
§§
U.S.C.
1983 and
violation of the
and
violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Act; (3)
Open
outrageous
Tennessee
Records
Act,
1692a(5).
§
Practices
15 U.S.C.
Most of
conduct
infliction
or intentional
of emotional
pressed
appeal.
are not
these
on
distress;
(4) negligence
gross negligence
or
blush,
so,
it
challenges,
first
2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
WL
Court, focusing
appeals to
question
the district
appears
difficult
and,
question
on the
appeal
that Williams lacked
court’s conclusion
jurisdiction,
has
assuming this Court
injured
standing;
having
been
without
pro-
red light
whether
ordinance
procedures,
these
she resembles mere
law. Final-
state
gram violates federal
“general
a non-justiciable
outsider
parties
made
ly,
argument,
oral
grievance.”
Hays,
See United States
give
Knoxville would
key agreement:
737, 743,
115 S.Ct.
important
dispo-
to our
hearing.
This
(1995) (“[W]e
repeatedly
L.Ed.2d 635
have
sition.
rеcognize
generalized griev-
refused to
*4
against allegedly illegal
ance
government
II.
to invoke
standing
conduct as sufficient for
a
of
grant
reviews
This Court
judicial power.”);
the federal
Herrada v.
novo,
summary
must
judgment de
and
(6th
Detroit,
553,
F.3d
558
275
of
in
all
reasonable
inferences
draw
Cir.2001) (“Herrada
standing
lacks
to ar-
Auto.,
v. TRW
Williams’s favor. Crawford
despite
hearings
that
are not held
gue
(6th Cir.2009).
607,
560 F.3d
611
owners,
requests by vehicle
because she
claims
district court dismissed Williams’s
request
the
rather than
pay
elected to
fíne
satisfy
To
“the irre
want
hearing.”).
compli-
a
But this case is more
minimum of stand
ducible constitutional
cated than that.
III,
plaintiff
under Article
a
must
ing”
(1)
showings:
injury
an
in
make three
is
the plaintiffs
unlike
who
Williams
legally
the invasion of a
meaning
faсt—
simply
procedures they
to
the
failed
invoke
(a)
that
and
is
concrete
protected interest
challenged.
v.
High
Shavitz
Cf.
(b)
imminent,
or
particularized, and
actual
Point,
(M.D.N.C.
F.Supp.2d
270
710
(2)
hypothetical;
a caus
conjectural
not
2003);
City Chicаgo,
Harken v.
Van
906
injury
al
relationship between the
and
(dis
(N.D.Ill.1995)
1182, 1187 n.
F.Supp.
5
inju
that
challenged
meaning
actions—
missing
by litigants
claims
who “cannot
ry
fairly
traceable to
defendants’
inadequacy
claim
of the
that
process
conduct;
inju
and
a likelihood
they
bring
play”).
made no effort to
into
ry
by
will be redressed
a favorable deci
Instead the citation Williams received not
meaning
prospect
of obtain
sion—
only told her that
owed a
fine and
$50
ing
ruling
relief from a favorable
is not
hearing,
that she
to a
it ap
was entitled
speculative. Lujan Wild
Defenders of
to,
peared
erroneously, condition her right
555, 560-61,
life,
112
504 U.S.
S.Ct.
up
payment
to a
on her
front
of a
(1992).
in
party
“[T]he
Indeed, notice that offers ticketed because Williams did invoke paying the choice fine and between procedure, any regard- Tennessee’s claim having challenge it pay offers $67.50 ing inadequacy purеly speculative their Standing requires plain- no choice at all. and was properly dismissed. bring tiffs who such to have claims suf- fairly injury fered an that is traceable to III. seek violation which redress.
Lujan,
That Williams received an pro- affirmed, сessing price agree I do not the plaintiff fee over above the of the that gives ticket itself enough to had standing bring this federal lawsuit. get in the courthouse door. In my judgment, the Honorable Thomas gets But she no further than Phillips got W. of the district court it that. Because now prom Knoxville has precisely right: had no claim, give ised to her a hearing, her which standing to sue because she failed to show specifics of the that she personally suffered “an actual or hearing, Knoxville offers for a ticket injury imminent” is both “concrete unripe. ripeness inquiry requires particularized” conjectural and “not “(1) Court to two questions: consider [I]s hypothetical.” Lujan v. Defenders of judicial the claim fit decision in the 555, 560, Wildlife, 112 S.Ct. sensе that it arises a concrete factual (1992) (internal quotation L.Ed.2d 351 dispute context and concerns a omitted). marks and citations She suf- [A]nd, likely pass? to come to what is all, fered no injury not even the cost to the hardship parties withhоlding telephone call to the Knoxville court consideration?” Warshak v. United Court request hearing. Had she (6th States, Cir.2008) 532 F.3d 525-26 call, (en made such a banc) (internal would have been quotations citations and omitted). given Here, date and learned Williams admits that she challenges procedures experi- processing she has not fee would be assessed. judg- court’s the district
I would affirm opin- written Phillips’s well Judge
ment on
ion. America,
UNITED STATES
Plaintiff-Appellee, MAYE, Defendant-
Ricco Lamonte
Appellant. 07-4311. Appeals, Court of
United States Circuit.
Sixth 11, 2009.
Argued: March and Filed:
Decided Oct.