SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2020 Supreme(US)(ca11) 118

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
Wade Steven Gardner – Appellant
Versus
William Mutz – Respondent



[PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________

No. 19-10461 ________________________

D.C. Docket No. 8:18-cv-02843-VMC-JSS

WADE STEVEN GARDNER, MARY JOYCE STEVENS, RANDY WHITTAKER, In Official Capacity at Southern War Cry, VETERANS MONUMENTS OF AMERICA, INC., Andy Strickland, US Army Ret, President, PHIL WALTERS, In his Official Capacity as 1st Lt. Commander of the Judah P. Benjamin Camp # 2210 Sons of Confederate Veterans, KEN DANIEL, In his Official Capacity as Director of Save Southern Heritage, Inc. Florida, RANDY WHITTAKER, Individually,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

versus WILLIAM MUTZ, In his Official Capacity as Mayor of the City of Lakeland, Florida, TONY DELGADO, In his Official Capacity as Administrator of the City of Lakeland, Florida, DON SELVEGE, In his Official Capacity as City of Lakeland, Florida Commissioner, JUSTIN TROLLER, In his Official Capacity as City of Lakeland, Florida Commissioner, Case: 19-10461 Date Filed: 06/22/2020 Page: 2 of 26

PHILLIP WALKER, In his Official Capacity as City of Lakeland, Florida Commissioner, FLORIDA SECRETARY OF STATE, et al.,

Defendants - Appellees.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida ________________________

(June 22, 2020) Before MARTIN, NEWSOM, and O’SCANNLAIN, * Circuit Judges. NEWSOM, Circuit Judge:

This appeal arises from a lawsuit filed by a group of individuals and organizations who object to the City of Lakeland’s decision to relocate a Confederate monument from one city park to another. As relevant here, the plaintiffs contend that the relocation violates their rights under the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. The district court rejected the plaintiffs’ First Amendment claim on the merits and dismissed it with prejudice; the court dismissed the plaintiffs’ due process claim without prejudice on the ground that they lacked the requisite standing to pursue it.

* Honorable Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain, United States Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit, sitting by designation.

2 Case: 19-10461 Date Filed: 06/22/2020 Page: 3 of 26

Following the district court’s decision, the plaintiffs failed to obtain (or even seek) a stay, and, by the time the case reached us the City had proceeded to relocate the monument. On appeal, the plaintiffs challenge the dismissal of their complaint, and the defendants respond by contesting the plaintiffs’ standing to sue, defending the district court’s decision on the merits, and contending that the monument’s relocation has rendered the case moot. We hold that the plaintiffs lack standing to pursue either their First Amendment claim or their due process claim. Accordingly, we will vacate and remand the with-prejudice dismissal of the plaintiffs’ First Amendment claim, with instructions that the district court should dismiss without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction, and we will affirm the district court’s without-prejudice dismissal of the plaintiffs’ due process claim.

I A The plaintiffs in this case are Wade Steven Gardner, a citizen-taxpayer of Lakeland; Randy Whittaker, a citizen-taxpayer of Polk County who has, he says, “Confe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top