Doretta Holyfield-Vega v. Roy Moore, et al


Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Doretta Joyce Holyfield-Vega. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam.

Download PDF
Case: 13-10999 Date Filed: 01/08/2014 Page: 1 of 3 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 13-10999 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 5:12-cv-04023-AKK DORETTA JOYCE HOLYFIELD-VEGA, Min., "The Messenger", Plaintiff-Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, THE Leaders, Defendant, ALABAMA SUPREME COURT/ HONORABLE ROY MOORE, ALABAMA LEGISLATURE MEMBERS, US SUPREME COURT/ HONORABLE JOHN ROBERTS, Defendants-Appellees. Case: 13-10999 Date Filed: 01/08/2014 Page: 2 of 3 ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama ________________________ (January 8, 2014) Before MARCUS, PRYOR and FAY, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Doretta Holyfield-Vega appeals pro se the dismissal with prejudice of her complaint for injunctive relief against officials of the United States and the State of Alabama. The district court ruled that Holyfield-Vega lacked standing to sue the officials. We affirm. The district court correctly concluded that Holyfield-Vega failed to allege that she had suffered an injury in fact. To have standing, a plaintiff must establish that she has incurred an injury to a protected interest that is “concrete and particularized.” Fla. Wildlife Fed’n, Inc. v. S. Fla. Water Mgmt. Dist., 647 F.3d 1296, 1302 (11th Cir. 2011). Holyfield-Vega alleged that “[t]he removal of pray[er]” from “school and other areas” by federal and state officials violated her right to the free exercise of religion under the First Amendment, but HolyfieldVega failed to describe how she had been injured by the officials’ conduct. Holyfield-Vega argued that she was entitled to proceed “[a]s a concern[ed] United States Citizen,” but a plaintiff “does not state an Article III case or controversy” by 2 Case: 13-10999 Date Filed: 01/08/2014 Page: 3 of 3 “claiming only harm to [her] and every citizen’s interest in proper application of the Constitution . . . and seeking relief that no more directly and tangibly benefits [her] than it does the public at large,” Lance v. Coffman, 549 U.S. 437, 439, 127 S. Ct. 1194, 1196 (2007) (quoting Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 573– 74, 112 S. Ct. 2130, 2143 (1992)); Fairchild v. Hughes, 258 U.S. 126, 42 S. Ct. 274 (1922). The district court correctly dismissed Holyfield-Vega’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We AFFIRM the dismissal of Holyfield-Vega’s complaint. 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?