Doretta Holyfield-Vega v. Roy Moore, et al

Filing

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

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[DO NOT PUBLISH]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