Landes v. Tartaglione

Opinions of the United
2005 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
11-2-2005
Landes v. Tartaglione
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 04-4421
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005
Recommended Citation
"Landes v. Tartaglione" (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 277.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/277
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2005 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 04-4421 & 04-4439
________________
LYNN E. LANDES,
Appellant
V.
MARGARET TARTAGLIONE, in her official capacity as chair of the city
Commissioners of Philadelphia; PEDRO A. CORTES, in his official capacity as
Secretary of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; *ALBERTO GONZALES, in his
official capacity as the Attorney General of the United States
(*Amended per Clerk’s Order of 3/1/05)
____________________________________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the Eastern District of Philadelphia
(D.C. Civil Nos. 04-cv-03164 & 04-cv-03163)
District Judges: Honorable Bruce Kauffman and Thomas N. O’Neill, Jr.
_______________________________________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
August 5, 2005
Before: ROTH, McKEE and ALDISERT, Circuit Judges
(Filed: November 2, 2005)
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
PER CURIAM
Lynne Landes filed two suits in the District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania against state and federal government officials seeking injunctive and
declaratory relief for alleged violations of Article I § 2 of the United States Constitution,
the First Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42
U.S.C. § 1971 et. seq), and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The first suit challenged the use of
electronic voting machines, E.D. Pa. Civil No. 04-cv-03163, and the second suit
challenged the use of absentee balloting, E.D. Pa. Civil No. 04-cv-03164. See
Supplemental Appendix (Nos. 04-4421/4439) at 1-18, 48-57. In both cases, the District
Court granted the government officials’ motions to dismiss, finding that Landes lacked
standing to bring suit. Appendix (No. 04-4421) at 3-7; Appendix (No. 04-4439) at 3-8.
The appeal of the voting machine suit is docketed at No. 04-4439, and the absentee ballot
suit is docketed at No. 04-4421. The appeals were consolidated for disposition.
Our review of the District Court’s dismissal for lack of standing is plenary.
Pennsylvania Psychiatric Soc. v. Green Spring Health Serv., Inc., 280 F.3d 278, 282 (3d
Cir. 2002).
A person seeking to invoke federal jurisdiction must establish her standing to sue
under Article III § 2 of the Constitution, which limits the courts to hearing actual cases or
controversies. Anjelino v. New York Times, 200 F.3d 73, 87 (3d Cir. 1999). To
establish standing, the party must set forth, inter alia, specific facts indicating an injury in
2
fact that is “concrete and particularized and actual or imminent, not conjectural or
hypothetical.” Storino v. Borough of Point Pleasant Beach, 322 F.3d 293, 296 (3d Cir.
2003); see also Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811, 818-20 (1997). Viewing the facts alleged
in Landes’ complaints in the light most favorable to her, see Pennsylvania Psychiatric
Soc., 280 F.3d at 283, we agree with the District Court’s conclusion that Landes does not
allege a “concrete and particularized” injury, and thereby lacks standing. Accordingly,
we will affirm.
3