Paul Kendall v. Howard County, Maryland
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:09-cv-00369-JFM Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998573056].. [09-2117, 09-2210]
Case: 09-2117
Document: 82
Date Filed: 04/21/2011
Page: 1
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-2117
PAUL F. KENDALL; FRANK MARTIN; PHILLIP ROUSSEAU,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
and
BOBBIE ATHEY; LARRY ATHEY; JOHN MEY; JANET MEY; DENISE EDEN;
PAUL EDEN; KNUT ELLENES; ELEANORE ELLENES; ORAL FOLKS; SUE
FOLKS,
Plaintiffs,
v.
HOWARD COUNTY, MARYLAND; BARBARA MCFAUL COOK, Individually;
PAUL JOHNSON, Individually; LYNN ROBESON, Individually;
MARSHA
S.
MCLAUGHLIN,
Individually;
JAMES
IRVIN,
Individually; CINDY HAMILTON, Individually; CHARLES F.
DAMMERS, Individually,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 09-2210
PAUL F. KENDALL; FRANK MARTIN; PHILLIP ROUSSEAU,
Plaintiffs - Appellees,
and
BOBBIE ATHEY; LARRY ATHEY; JOHN MEY; JANET MEY; DENISE EDEN;
PAUL EDEN; KNUT ELLENES; ELEANORE ELLENES; ORAL FOLKS; SUE
FOLKS,
Plaintiffs,
Case: 09-2117
Document: 82
Date Filed: 04/21/2011
Page: 2
v.
HOWARD COUNTY, MARYLAND; BARBARA MCFAUL COOK, Individually;
PAUL JOHNSON, Individually; LYNN ROBESON, Individually;
MARSHA
S.
MCLAUGHLIN,
Individually;
JAMES
IRVIN,
Individually; CINDY HAMILTON, Individually; CHARLES F.
DAMMERS, Individually,
Defendants - Appellants.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District
of Maryland, at Baltimore.
J. Frederick Motz, District Judge.
(1:09-cv-00369-JFM)
Argued:
January 25, 2011
Decided:
April 21, 2011
Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Vacated and remanded with instructions by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
ARGUED:
Susan
Baker
Gray,
Highland,
Maryland,
for
Appellants/Cross-Appellees.
Melissa Shane Whipkey, HOWARD
COUNTY
OFFICE
OF
LAW,
Ellicott
City,
Maryland,
for
Appellees/Cross-Appellants.
ON BRIEF:
Margaret Ann Nolan,
County Solicitor, Louis P. Ruzzi, Senior Assistant County
Solicitor, HOWARD COUNTY OFFICE OF LAW, Ellicott City, Maryland,
for Appellees/Cross-Appellants.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
Case: 09-2117
Document: 82
Date Filed: 04/21/2011
Page: 3
PER CURIAM:
Thirteen residents and registered voters (“Residents”) of
Howard County, Maryland, commenced this action under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 against Howard County and seven of its officers in their
individual capacities, alleging violations of the Howard County
Charter
and
the
Constitution.
Council
First
The
(“County
resolution
improper
and
Fourteenth
Residents
Council”)
rather
than
procedures
allege
Amendments
that
improperly
by
“original
violated
their
the
enacted
bill” ∗
rights
to
the
Howard
U.S.
County
legislation
and
by
that
the
under
these
Howard
County Charter and the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
On the
defendants’ motion to dismiss, the district court elected to
abstain
citing
under
the
Burford
presence
of
v.
Sun
Oil
complex
Co.,
319
questions
U.S.
of
315
state
(1943),
law.
On
appeal from the district court’s order, we conclude that the
Residents lacked standing to bring this action and therefore the
district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.
we
vacate
the
court’s
order
and
remand
with
Accordingly,
instructions
to
dismiss the action.
∗
According to the Residents, a resolution is “a measure
adopted by the Council having the force and effect of law but of
a temporary or administrative character,” whereas an original
bill is used for “legislative acts,” which are “subject to
petitioning to referendum.”
3
Case: 09-2117
Document: 82
Date Filed: 04/21/2011
Page: 4
In their complaint, the Residents alleged that, on multiple
occasions, the County Council used an improper procedure for
taking legislative action, contending that the County Council
“used the mechanism of ‘resolution’ and other means to insulate
certain
actions
undertaken,
usually
on
behalf
of
favored
constituents, from challenge by referendum,” in violation of the
Howard County Charter.
Section 202(g) of the Charter provides:
Any amendment, restatement or revision to the Howard
County
General
Plan,
the
Howard
County
Zoning
Regulations or Howard County Zoning Maps, other than a
reclassification map amendment established under the
“change and mistake” principle set out by the Maryland
Court of Appeals, is declared to be a legislative act
and may be passed only by the Howard County Council by
original bill in accordance with the legislative
procedure set forth in Section 209 of the Howard
County Charter.
Such an act shall be subject to
executive veto and may be petitioned to referendum by
the people of the county pursuant to Section 211 of
the Charter.
They also assert that six sections of the Howard County Code are
facially
unconstitutional
governmental
approval
of
because
“they
actions
purport
within
the
to
terms
authorize
of
this
charter provision by other than original bill, thus making the
approval not subject to petitioning to referendum,” thus denying
them their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
In addition,
the Residents “contest a variety of individual decisions . . .
made
by
other
Residents’]
than
right
of
original
bill
referendum.”
thus
circumventing
Finally,
the
[the
Residents
“challenge a number of discrete actions undertaken primarily by
4
Case: 09-2117
executive
branch
Document: 82
Date Filed: 04/21/2011
[officials]
without
any
Page: 5
purported
authority
which they allege fall within the actions/activities covered by
one or both o[f] these charter provisions.”
Determining that abstention was appropriate under Burford
v.
Sun
Oil
Co.,
dismissed
without
equitable
or
319
U.S.
prejudice
discretionary
315
the
(1943),
claims
relief,
the
of
stayed
district
the
court
complaint
the
claims
for
for
damages, and invited the parties to pursue their case in state
court.
Following the district court’s invitation, the Residents
filed suit in the Circuit Court for Howard County, raising their
state
law
claims
and
stating
their
federal claims for federal court.
desire
to
reserve
their
They also filed this appeal.
On appeal, the Residents assert that their complaint seeks
to vindicate important free speech rights under the First and
Fourteenth Amendments insofar as the
supplanting of original bills . . . with resolutions
and administrative acts[] represented in each case a
direct affront to and usurpation of the political
power and governing authority of the People of Howard
County.
A decision made to utilize a resolution
instead of an original bill directly diminishes the
quantum of free speech by preventing the people from
associating to oppose a legislative action approved by
the Howard County Council.
Elaborating, they explain:
The actions of drafting a petition, submitting it for
approval to the Board of Elections, organizing for
circulating the petition, building coalitions of
support, and finally the circulation of the petition
for referendum involve the full range and scope of
5
Case: 09-2117
Document: 82
Date Filed: 04/21/2011
Page: 6
First Amendment rights, petitioning the government for
redress of grievances, freedom of association, freedom
of speech, and culminating in the right to vote. The
deliberate refusal of the County to utilize the
mechanism of the original bill completely eradicates
this process, thus totally and completely depriving
Appellants[] of their First Amendment rights and their
right to vote.
They argue that the district court’s decision to abstain under
Burford was inappropriate because this case was not about county
land use law or zoning, for which Burford abstention might be
appropriate,
but
rather
was
about
the
County’s
legislative
procedure, which applies not only in the land use context, but
in the context of any Howard County legislative action.
They
argue that the federal interests in this case outweigh the state
interests
and
that
a
federal
court
would
not
“intrude
upon
‘complex state administrative processes.’”
The defendants, too, contend that Burford abstention was
inappropriate,
district
but
court
they
should
do
so
have
because,
dismissed
subject matter jurisdiction.
as
they
contend,
the
case
for
lack
the
of
They argue that the Residents did
not have standing in that they failed to assert a particularized
harm.
In
individual
Finally,
the
alternative,
defendants
they
argue
the
defendants
were
protected
that
the
cognizable federal claim.
6
by
Residents
claim
qualified
did
not
that
the
immunity.
state
a
Case: 09-2117
We
agree
Document: 82
with
the
Date Filed: 04/21/2011
defendants
that
the
Page: 7
Residents
lack
standing to bring this action and therefore that the action must
be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Under
federal standing jurisprudence, “when the asserted harm is a
generalized grievance shared in substantially equal measure by
all or a large class of citizens, that harm alone normally does
not warrant exercise of jurisdiction.”
F.3d
419,
423
(4th
Cir.
2009)
Bishop v. Bartlett, 575
(internal
quotation
marks
omitted); see also id. at 424 (a party lacks standing when its
interest is “merely a claim of the right, possessed by every
citizen,
to
require
that
the
government
be
administered
according to law”) (internal quotation marks omitted).
In this case, the Residents purport to state claims, which
are possessed by every citizen of Howard County, to require that
the County government “be administered according to law.”
grievances
them
with
are
accordingly
standing
to
simply
support
too
generalized
federal
to
Their
provide
jurisdiction.
We
therefore vacate the district court’s Burford order and remand
with instructions to dismiss this action for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction.
VACATED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS
7
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?