Macon County Investments v. David Warren , 306 F. App'x 478 ( 2009 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 08-13897 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
JAN 05, 2009
Non-Argument Calendar
THOMAS K. KAHN
________________________
CLERK
D.C. Docket No. 06-00224-CV-W-E
MACON COUNTY INVESTMENTS, INC.,
REACH ONE, TEACH ONE OF AMERICA, INC.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
DAVID WARREN, Sheriff, in his official capacity
as the Sheriff of Macon County, Alabama,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Alabama
________________________
(January 5, 2009)
Before BIRCH, HULL and COX, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Macon County Investments, Inc. and Reach One, Teach One of America, Inc.
filed a joint application for a Class B Bingo License in Macon County, Alabama.
Sheriff David Warren of Macon County never responded to the application. Macon
County Investments, Inc. and Reach One, Teach One of America sued Sheriff Warren
seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. Specifically, Plaintiffs sought an injunction
prohibiting Sheriff Warren from granting Bingo licenses using the “First Amended
and Restated Rules and Regulations for the Licensing and Operation of Bingo Games
in Macon County, Alabama” (First Amended Rules) and the “Second Amended and
Restated Rules and Regulations” (Second Amended Rules). Plaintiffs also sought to
compel Sheriff Warren to grant them a Class B Bingo License under the original
“Rules and Regulations for the Licensing and Operation of Bingo Games in Macon
County” (2003 Rules). Additionally, Plaintiffs sought declaratory relief stating that
their equal protection rights had been violated and attorney’s fees.
The district court granted summary judgment to Sheriff Warren on the ground
that Plaintiffs lacked standing. Specifically, Plaintiffs did not challenge the original
2003 Rules covering the administration of Bingo Licenses. Because Plaintiffs do not
meet the requirements for a Class B Bingo License under the 2003 Rules, the district
court concluded that the relief Plaintiffs sought would not redress their injury.
2
Plaintiffs made a motion to reconsider the grant of summary judgment, arguing
that summary judgment was improperly granted since Plaintiffs did have standing.
The district court denied this motion. Plaintiffs contend that they did challenge the
2003 Rules in their suit and that, even if they did not, there was evidence in the record
that they substantially complied with the requirements of the 2003 Rules.1
The district court did not err in granting summary judgment. First, the district
court correctly concluded that Plaintiffs only challenged the First and Second
Amended Rules. Plaintiffs’ argument that they sought to challenge the original 2003
Rules because they are incorporated by reference into the First and Second Amended
Rules is without merit. The relief requested in Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint seeks
an injunction against “operating under the First or Second Amended Rules.” (R.1-20
at 6.) Indeed, Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint alleges an equal protection violation
grounded on the fact that Plaintiffs, as applicants under the Second Amended Rules,
were not treated in the same manner as applicants under the 2003 Rules. (R.1-20 at
5.) Plaintiffs clearly sought to challenge only the First and Second Amended Rules,
and leave in place the 2003 Rules.
1
Plaintiffs also argue Sheriff Warren exceeded his rule-making authority in establishing a
bingo monopoly and that the district court erred in stating that Reach One, Teach One was not an
active charity in good standing. These arguments are irrelevant to the issue of standing argued in
the motion for reconsideration and now before us in this appeal.
3
Second, the district court correctly concluded that Plaintiffs did not satisfy the
requirements of the original 2003 Rules. The undisputed evidence in the record
shows that Plaintiffs did not submit personal data sheets for each of Reach One,
Teach One’s officers and directors. (R. 2-59 Ex. 2 at 197: 3-8).2 This information is
required under the 2003 Rules as well as the First and Second Amended Rules.
Accordingly, even if the district court grants Plaintiffs the injunctive relief they seek,
Plaintiffs still do not qualify for a Class B Bingo License under the unchallenged
2003 Rules. Under these facts, Plaintiffs lack standing because the relief they seek
will not redress the injury they complain of. See KH Outdoor, L.L.C. v. Clay County,
482 F.3d 1299, 1303-1304 (11th Cir. 2007) (no standing where application denied on
account of challenged regulation would also be denied based on regulations not
challenged in suit).
AFFIRMED.
2
Additionally, Plaintiffs’ application does not meet many of the other requirements under the
2003 Rules. (R.2-59 Ex. 4 at 6-7.)
4