Term Paper on "Appellant"

/>3. The organizational goal of MOM is to provide emotional and financial support for its members whose sons are incarcerated at MCF.

4. During the past three years, MOM members have provided financial support for travel costs to assist members whose sons are currently incarcerated at MCF to visits at the facility on an average of once a week.

5. On seven occasions between December 2002 and June 2003, MOM members were denied visitation of their incarcerated sons as a result of the suspension of visiting privileges.

On December 2001 M. Lin began serving a three-year prison sentence at MCF for the conviction of felony aggravated battery.

7. M. Lin was released on December 22, 2003, almost a year early from his original release date of December 1, 2004.

8. M. Lin was released without any requirement of supervision, and is no longer under the custody or control of the State of Florida.

M. Lin and his mother testified that on three occasions between December 2002

June 2003, Ms. Lin was denied visitation of her son at MCF.

10. M. Lin's release from incarceration occurred after the filing of the lawsuit.

11. M. Lin's mother is an active member of MOM and currently serves as the organization's president.

12. During M. Lin's incarceration, it has been his mother's usual practice to visit him approximately once a week.

13. As part of the correctional system of the State of Florida, MCF is subject to the direction of the Florida Department of Corrections.

14. One of the DOC's administrative regulations, Rule 33-601.717, Florida Administrative Code, provides grounds on which visitation privileges afforded to inmates in DOC custody may be denied, revoked, or suspended.

15. Rule 33-601.714 provides that the prison superintendent is authorized to deny or terminate a visit only if "any of its aspects are disruptive or violate rules, procedures, instructions, restrictions, orders, or directions."

16. The effect of a suspension of privileges is that the inmate may not have any visitors, except his attorney, during the time of the suspension.

17. M. Lin's visitation privileges were suspended a total of 26 days in 2003.

18. The sons of six other members of MOM suffered similar suspensions of visitation privileges in 2003.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

Plaintiff Mothers of M. Men (MOM) lack standing to prosecute this action in this Court, and Plaintiff M. Lin's lawsuit is rendered moot by his release from incarceration, which occurred after the filing of the lawsuit but before the hearing on the Defendant's motion. Furthermore, the cause of action is unripe, and no declamatory judgment is available. Additionally, the cause of action will fail on arguments made on the basis of the Prison Litigation Reform Act and under the Civil Rights Claim Act. Thus, Plaintiffs lawsuit must accordingly be dismissed.

US CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIMS

STANDING

AUTHORITY

Article III, Section 2 limits the jurisdiction of federal courts to "cases" or "controversies." A "case" or "controversy" is a real and substantial dispute which touches the legal relations of parties having adverse interests and which can be resolved by a judicial decree of a conclusive character. Aetna Life Insurance Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227 (1937). The plaintiff must show a direct and personal injury by the action that he/she is complaining about. When the plaintiff has not suffered any personal injury or harm, then he/she does not have standing. Sierra v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727 (1972). The injury must be caused by the violation of a duty affecting the plaintiff's rights arising under the constitution or federal laws. Under the traditional view, a litigant lacks the standing to assert the rights of third parties not before the court. Tileston v.Ullman, 318 U.S. 44 (1943).

However, in certain situations, the Court has permitted a party to raise the constitutional rights of a third party. An association has standing to assert the claims of its members, even if the association has not suffered any injury itself, if a) the members would otherwise have standing to sue in their own right, b) the interest asserted is germane to the association's purpose, and c) neither the claim asserted nor the relief requested would require participation by the individual members in the lawsuit. Hunt v. Washington Apple Advertising Commission, 432 U.S. 333 (1977). A declamatory judgment is a decision where the court is requested to determine the legal effect of a proposed conduct without awarding damages or injunctive relief. However, the legal questions may not be too abstract or hypothetical.

ARGUMENT

Mothers of M. Men lacks standing to prosecute this action in this Court. Article III of the United States Constitution confines the federal judiciary to hearing actual "cases or controversies" where a plaintiff must have standing to prosecute the matter in a federal court. The standing doctrine requires that the plaintiff allege a personal injury in fact that is failure traceable to the allegedly unlawful acts of the defendant and likely to be redressed by the requested relief. MOM, as an organization, cannot allege that it has been injured in fact. MOM cannot prove a direct and personal injury caused by the suspension of visitation rights. Since MOM cannot show this injury, MOM does not have standing.

Furthermore, MOM as an organization, was not denied access to MCF inmates. There were only six other members that suffered suspensions of visiting privileges in 2003, with each suspension being under 33 days of suspension. The argument that MOM would have standing under the factors applied in the Hunt case would also fail. The members of MOM would not have standing to sue in their own right because only six of them were denied visitation rights, and since those denied the rights were not the prisoners themselves, but the mothers, MOM could not allege personal or direct injury, Secondly, visitation rights are not a relevant portion of the association's purpose, which is to provide emotional support for its members. Although on three occasions in the past three years, the organization has provided financial support to help a member travel to MCF for the purpose of visiting her son, this is not the central purpose of the organization. Additionally, three instances in the past three years will fail under the relevancy test. Finally, both the claim asserted and the relief requested would require participation by the individual members in the lawsuit. A declamatory judgment will also fail because the court is not being requested to determine the legal effect of a proposed conduct without awarding damages or injunctive relief. Thus, MOM lacks standing to prosecute this lawsuit.

B. MOOTNESS

AUTHORITY

If the controversy or matter has been resolved, then the case will be dismissed as moot. An actual "case" or "controversy" must exist at all stages of the litigation. Liner v. Jafco, Inc. 375 U.S. 301 (1964). Although the principal issue in the lawsuit has been resolved, if a party still has an interest in resolving collateral matters, the case will not be dismissed. Powell v. McCormick, 395 U.S. 486 (1969). Where the injury is capable of repetition, yet evading review, it is a practical impossibility to achieve appellate review in such cases before the claims of the same plaintiff, or other plaintiffs who are members of the same class, become moot. Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973). If intervening factual or legal events effectively dispel the case or controversy during pendancy of the lawsuit, the case is moot and the federal courts are powerless to decide the questions presented.

ARGUMENT

In order to be justifiable under Article III, the conflict between the litigants must present a case or controversy both at the time the lawsuit is filed and at the time it is decided. In this cause of action, since there are intervening factual or legal… READ MORE