Opinion
No. 99-CV-460A.
December 3, 2004
ORDER
Plaintiffs commenced this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, on July 7, 1999. On November 15, 2001, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Leslie G. Foschio, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), on November 29, 2001. On July 2, 2004, Magistrate Judge Foschio filed a Report and Recommendation, recommending that defendants' motion for summary judgment be granted as to plaintiffs' First, Second, Third, Fourth and Seventh Causes of Action, and that plaintiffs' Fifth and Sixth Causes of Action (which assert state law claims) be dismissed, without prejudice. He alternatively recommends that defendants' motion for summary judgment be granted against all of the plaintiffs' causes of action, and that the action be dismissed in its entirety.
Plaintiffs filed objections to the Report and Recommendation on August 26, 2004. Defendants filed a response thereto on October 4, 2004. Oral argument on the objections was held on November 30, 2004.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court must make a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections have been made. Upon a de novo review of the Report and Recommendation, and after reviewing the submissions and hearing argument from the parties, the Court adopts the proposed findings of the Report and Recommendation.
In particular, the Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Foschio's thorough and well-reasoned analysis, concluding that the plaintiffs have failed to produce sufficient evidence showing that they possess Article III standing. Article III "requires the party who invokes the court's authority to show that he personally has suffered some actual or threatened injury as a result of the putatively illegal conduct of the defendant."Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 472 (1982). This standing requirement "is not merely a troublesome hurdle to be overcome if possible so as to reach the `merits' of a lawsuit," but an integral part of the checks and balances provided for in the Constitution. Id. at 476. If plaintiffs do not possess Article III standing, then this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to address the merits of plaintiffs' case. See id. at 475-76, Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 498 (1975).
Plaintiffs bear the burden of proving standing. See Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561 (1992) (citations omitted). Plaintiffs must carry that burden "in the same way as any other matter on which the plaintiff bears the burden of proof, i.e., with the manner and degree of evidence required at successive stages of the litigation." Id. (citations omitted). At the summary judgment stage, the plaintiffs must produce evidence of standing in the form of pleadings, deposition testimony, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with affidavits, if any. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56;Gonzales v. North Township of Lake County, 4 F.3d 1412, 1415 (7th Cir. 1993) (citations omitted).
Here, plaintiffs have failed to present sufficient proof of standing so as to defeat summary judgment. There is a "general principle that some showing of injury is a prerequisite to a constitutional tort action." Crawford-El v. Britton, 951 F.2d 1314, 1322 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (citations omitted), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 818 (1992). In addition, the injury must be of constitutional dimension: "There is, of course, a de minimis level of imposition with which the Constitution is not concerned." Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U.S. 651, 674 (1977). As Magistrate Judge Foschio's analysis makes clear, even when viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, the evidence in the record shows that the defendants' conduct, at most, caused the plaintiffs some concern, aggravation and annoyance, and perhaps some momentary disruption or delay in their religious and/or non-religious activities. Such harm is de minimis in nature. There is no admissible evidence in the record that the plaintiffs suffered any type of physical or pecuniary injury, that they were deprived of any sort of liberty interest, or that their constitutional rights were imposed upon in any appreciable or non- de minimis manner. Specifically, there is no evidence that the plaintiffs were ever prevented by the defendants from participating in or completing their religious ceremonies or activities. Because plaintiffs have shown, at most, only de minimis harm as a result of the defendants' alleged conduct, they have not crossed the constitutional threshold necessary to assert a claim under § 1983. Cf. Buthy v. Commissioner of Office of Mental Health, 818 F.2d 1046, 1050 (2d Cir. 1987) (holding that state mental institution rule requiring forensic unit patients to remain awake for fixed 16-hour period is "a de minimis imposition on individual liberty" that cannot support due process claim);Walsh v. Louisiana High Sch. Athletic Ass'n, 616 F.2d 152, 158 (5th Cir. 1980) (rejecting student's challenge to "student transfer rule," making student attending high school outside his home district ineligible to participate in interscholastic athletics for one year, because of "the de minimis nature of the burden placed on the plaintiffs' free exercise of religion"),cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1124 (1981). In sum, the plaintiffs have failed to produce evidence showing that they have suffered the sort of harm that rises to the level of a "case or controversy" or cries out for constitutional redress. Cf. Valley Forge Christian College, 454 U.S. at 482-87 (simple offense at perceived constitutional violation not enough to provide standing).
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in Magistrate Judge Foschio's Report and Recommendation and herein, the Court grants defendants' motion for summary judgment as to plaintiffs' First, Second, Third, Fourth and Seventh Causes of Action, and dismisses, without prejudice, plaintiffs' Fifth and Sixth Causes of Action. The Clerk of Court shall take all steps necessary to close the case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.