Abate of Georgia v. State of Georgia
| Citation | 264 F.3d 1315 |
| Decision Date | 13 September 2001 |
| Docket Number | No. 01-12215,01-12215 |
| Parties | (11th Cir. 2001) ABATE OF GEORGIA, INC., and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE OF GEORGIA, GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, Defendants-Appellees. Non-Argument Calendar |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit |
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia D. C. Docket No. 00-01682-CV-TWT-1
Before ANDERSON, Chief Judge, DUBINA, and GODBOLD, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiff-Appellant American Bikers Active Toward Education ("ABATE") of Georgia, Inc., filed this action against Roy E. Barnes, in his official capacity as Governor of Georgia, Commissioner Robert E. Hightower of the Georgia Department of Public Safety in his official and individual capacities, the Georgia Board of Public Safety ("Board"), and the members of the Board in their official and individual capacities. Plaintiff brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and challenges the constitutionality of Georgia's motorcycle helmet law that requires all persons to wear "protective headgear" while operating or riding a motorcycle. Ga. Code Ann. § 40-6-315 (Supp. 1999). The district court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss. Plaintiff now appeals. We affirm.
We review de novo a district court's order granting a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See McKusick v. City of Melbourne, Fla., 96 F.3d 478, 482 (11th Cir. 1996).
The statute at issue states in its relevant part:
(a) No person shall operate or ride upon a motorcycle unless he or she is wearing protective headgear which complies with standards established by the Board of Public Safety.
(b) No person shall operate or ride upon a motorcycle if the motorcycle is not equipped with a windshield unless he or she is wearing an eye-protective device of a type approved by the Board of Public Safety.
(c) This Code section shall not apply to persons riding within an enclosed cab or motorized cart. This Code section shall not apply to a person operating a three-wheeled motorcycle used only for agricultural purposes.
(d) The Board of Public Safety is authorized to approve or disapprove protective headgear and eye-protective devices required in this Code section and to issue and enforce regulations establishing standards and specifications for the approval thereof. The Board of Public Safety shall publish lists of all protective headgear and eye-protective devices by name and type which have been approved by it.
§ 40-6-315.
The statute was amended in the 2000 session of the Georgia General Assembly to substitute the newly created Commissioner of Motor Vehicle Safety as the applicable regulatory authority for the Board of Public Safety, effective July 1, 2001. See id.
Plaintiff first contends that the Board's failure to publish lists of approved headgear and eye-protective devices violates Plaintiff's rights under the First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Second, Plaintiff contends that the statute is unconstitutionally vague. Plaintiff alleges that the failure of the Board to publish a list of approved gear prevented ABATE's members from knowing what equipment satisfies the statutory requirements.
The district court did not err in granting Defendants' motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The statute authorizes the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Baxter Intern., Inc.
...DISCUSSION We review a district court's grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim de novo. ABATE of Georgia, Inc. v. Georgia, 264 F.3d 1315, 1315 (11th Cir.2001). A motion to dismiss a complaint in intervention is reviewed under the same standard applicable to consideration ......
-
United States v. Baxter International, Incorporated; Baxter Healthcare Corporation, No. 01-16782.
...DISCUSSION We review a district court's grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim de novo. Abate of Georgia, Inc. v. Georgia, 264 F.3d 1315, 1315 (11th Cir. 2001). A motion to dismiss a complaint in intervention is reviewed under the same standard applicable to consideration......
-
McDonald v. Southern Farm Bureau Life Ins. Co., No. 01-15648.
...of the district court's dismissal of the case on the ground that no such cause of action can be implied. See ABATE of Georgia, Inc. v. Georgia, 264 F.3d 1315, 1315 (11th Cir.2001). In Cort v. Ash, 422 U.S. 66, 95 S.Ct. 2080, 45 L.Ed.2d 26 (1975), the Supreme Court established a four-part te......
-
State v. Eckblad
...statute clearly proscribes some conduct, such as riding a motorcycle without any protective head-covering whatsoever.") aff'd, 264 F.3d 1315 (11th Cir.2001); Kingery v. Chapple, 504 P.2d 831, 836 (Alaska 1972); Buhl v. Hannigan, 16 Cal.App.4th 1612, 1622, 20 Cal. Rptr.2d 740 (1993); State v......
-
Constitutional Civil Rights - John Sanchez
...F. Supp. 2d 1357 (N.D. Ga. 2001), vacated by 252 F.3d 1165 (11th Cir. 2001). 64. . Id. at 1364. 65. . 252 F.3d at 1166. 66. . Id. 67. . 264 F.3d 1315 (11th Cir. 2001) (per curiam). 68. . Id. at 1315-16. 69. . Id. at 1316-17. 70. . Id. at 1315-16. 71. . Id. at 1316. 72. . Id. 73. . Id. 74. .......