West Virginia Citizens Defense v. City of Martinsburg

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:11-cv-00005-JPB Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998877864].. [11-2231]

Appeal: 11-2231

Doc: 27

Filed: 06/19/2012

Pg: 1 of 7

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-2231

WEST VIRGINIA CITIZENS DEFENSE
Virginia nonprofit corporation,

LEAGUE,

INC.,

a

West

Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CITY OF MARTINSBURG, a West Virginia municipal corporation;
GEORGE KAROS, personally and in his official capacity as the
Mayor of the City of Martinsburg; MARK S. BALDWIN,
personally and in his official capacity as the City Manager
of the City of Martinsburg; KEVIN MILLER, personally and in
his official capacity as the Chief of Police of the City of
Martinsburg,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. John Preston Bailey,
Chief District Judge. (3:11-cv-00005-JPB)

Submitted:

June 7, 2012

Decided:

June 19, 2012

Before AGEE, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James M. Mullins, Jr., THE LAW OFFICES OF JAMES M. MULLINS, JR.
PLLC, Beckley, West Virginia, for Appellant.
Floyd M. Sayre,
III, BOWLES RICE McDAVID GRAFF & LOVE, LLP, Martinsburg, West

Appeal: 11-2231

Doc: 27

Filed: 06/19/2012

Pg: 2 of 7

Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 11-2231

Doc: 27

Filed: 06/19/2012

Pg: 3 of 7

PER CURIAM:
In January 2011, the West Virginia Citizens Defense
League,

Inc.

(“WVCDL”)

filed

in

the

district

court

a

preenforcement challenge to § 545.14 of the Code of the City of
Martinsburg, West Virginia, which imposes certain restrictions
on the ability to possess a firearm within public buildings.
The

district

court

stayed

the

case,

invoking

the

abstention

doctrine first recognized in Railroad Comm’n of Tex. v. Pullman
Co., 312 U.S. 496 (1941).
dispute

now

standing

to

centers
press

upon

its

WVCDL appealed, and the parties’
two

issues:

current

(1) whether

claims,

and

(2)

WVCDL

has

whether

the

district court abused its discretion in staying the case under
the Pullman
review

of

abstention

the

record,

doctrine.

Because

that

has

WVCDL

we

conclude,

standing

and

on

that

a

the

district court did not abuse its discretion in abstaining under
Pullman, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
The

Defendants

“Martinsburg”)
§ 545.14

on

argue

behalf

that
of

its

to

the

WVCDL

lacks

members.

suit
standing
We

review

(collectively,
to

challenge

questions

of

standing de novo, and the burden of establishing standing “lies
squarely

on

the

party

claiming

subject-matter

jurisdiction.”

Frank Krasner Enters., Ltd. v. Montgomery County, 401 F.3d 230,
234 (4th Cir. 2005).

3

Appeal: 11-2231

Doc: 27

Filed: 06/19/2012

Pg: 4 of 7

An organization bringing suit on behalf of its members
must

satisfy

three

organizational

requirements

standing:

(1)

that

in

order

to

its

members

secure

would

have

standing to sue as individuals; (2) that the interests it seeks
to

protect

(3) that

are

individual

the

germane

suit

to

does

members.

the

not

Equity

organization’s

require
In

the

Athletics,

purpose;

and

participation
Inc.

v.

of

Dep’t

of

Educ., 639 F.3d 91, 99 (4th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct.
1004 (2012).

With respect to the first of these requirements,

individual members must show that they suffered “an actual or
threatened

injury

that

is

concrete,

particularized,

and

not

conjectural,” and that is fairly traceable to the challenged
conduct and likely to be redressed by a favorable decision.

Id.

“When a party brings a preenforcement challenge to a
statute or regulation, it must allege ‘an intention to engage in
a

course

interest,’

of

conduct
and

arguably

there

must

affected
exist

‘a

with

a

constitutional

credible

prosecution’ under the statute or regulation.”

threat

of

Va. Soc’y for

Human Life, Inc. v. Fed. Election Comm’n, 263 F.3d 379, 386 (4th
Cir. 2001) (quoting Babbitt v. United Farm Workers Nat’l Union,
442 U.S. 289, 298 (1979)).
the

constitutionality

of

Nevertheless, a plaintiff contesting
a

criminal

statute

need

not

“first

expose himself to actual arrest or prosecution to be entitled to

4

Appeal: 11-2231

Doc: 27

Filed: 06/19/2012

Pg: 5 of 7

challenge the statute that he claims deters the exercise of his
constitutional rights.”

Babbitt, 442 U.S. at 298; Mobil Oil

Corp. v. Att’y Gen. of Va., 940 F.2d 73, 76 (4th Cir. 1991).
Our review of the record convinces us that WVCDL has
sufficiently alleged that at least one of its members intends to
engage in conduct for which the prospect of prosecution is not
merely “imaginary” or “speculative.”

Va. Soc’y for Human Life,

263 F.3d at 386; Equity in Athletics, 639 F.3d at 99.

WVCDL

therefore has standing to pursue the claims it pressed before
the district court.
We conclude nevertheless that the district court did
not abuse its discretion when it determined to stay the case
under the Pullman abstention doctrine.

See Hennis v. Hemlick,

666 F.3d 270, 274 (4th Cir. 2012) (review of a district court’s
decision to abstain is for abuse of discretion).

Because a

district court abuses its discretion whenever “its decision is
guided by erroneous legal principles,” there is “little or no
discretion to abstain in a case which does not meet traditional
abstention requirements.”

Martin v. Stewart, 499 F.3d 360, 363

(4th Cir. 2007).
Federal courts “should abstain” under Pullman where a
case involves an open question of state law that is potentially
dispositive

inasmuch

as

its

resolution

5

may

moot

the

federal

Appeal: 11-2231

Doc: 27

Filed: 06/19/2012

constitutional

issue.

Va.

Pg: 6 of 7

Office

for

Prot.

&

Advocacy

v.

Stewart, 131 S. Ct. 1632, 1644 (2011) (Kennedy, J., concurring);
Educational Servs., Inc. v. Md. State Bd. for Higher Educ., 710
F.2d 170, 174 (4th Cir. 1983).
impinging

upon

state

The doctrine thus both avoids

sovereignty

and

forestalls

consideration of sensitive federal controversies.

premature

Stewart, 131

S. Ct. at 1644 (Kennedy, J., concurring); Nivens v. Gilchrist,
444 F.3d 237, 246 n.6 (4th Cir. 2006).
In this case, WVCDL’s assertion that the record is
bereft

of

evidence

demonstrating

the

presence

of

thorny

and

potentially dispositive state law questions is without merit,
given that WVCDL’s complaint squarely demonstrates the presence
of

numerous

such

issues.

Nor

do

we

countenance

WVCDL’s

contention that Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520
U.S. 43, 75-80 (1997), renders the district court’s reliance on
Pullman improper.

In our view, the circumstances of this case

would have supported either certifying a question of state law
to

the

West

abstention
available

Virginia

doctrine.
to

the

state

courts

Because

district

or

both

court,

it

invoking

the

Pullman

options

were

equally

was

an

not

abuse

of

discretion for the court to choose the latter over the former.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
court.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

6

Appeal: 11-2231

legal
before

Doc: 27

contentions
the

court

Filed: 06/19/2012

Pg: 7 of 7

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.

AFFIRMED

7