Fair v. Adams
| Decision Date | 04 September 1964 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 993. |
| Citation | 233 F. Supp. 310 |
| Parties | Jim FAIR, Plaintiff, v. Tom ADAMS, Secretary of State, State of Florida, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Florida |
Jim Fair, in pro. per., Tampa, Fla.
James W. Kynes, Atty. Gen. of Florida, Hal S. McClamma, Tallahassee, Fla., for defendant.
It is unnecessary to refer to each of the separate grounds asserted on defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint since the Court has determined that the motion is well taken on the specific ground that there is no actual case in controversy between this plaintiff and this defendant.
Assuming all of the allegations of plaintiff's complaint to be true, the Court cannot glean a justiciable issue which it would be authorized or required to resolve. This is so whether the complaint, as amended, is considered as a prayer for declaratory decree, as alleged, or as any other remedy available at law or equity.
The complaint, as amended, says, in pertinent parts, that the plaintiff is a taxpayer and qualified elector in Hillsborough County, Florida; that the defendant is a duly elected public official of the State of Florida and is charged under the state law with the qualification of candidates who seek national and state elective offices; that the plaintiff attempted to qualify as a candidate for the office of United States Representative on March 3, 1964 but that he failed to submit a qualifying fee as required by state law because he concluded that the statute setting the fee and its amount is unconstitutional. It is further set forth that the defendant did not place plaintiff's name on the primary ballot as a candidate for such office.
This complaint, as noted above, was filed on May 25, 1964. It was amended September 4, 1964. The Court notes that the primary in which plaintiff sought to be a candidate was held on May 5, 1964 some weeks before this complaint was filed. It is apparent, therefore, that neither this, nor any other Court, could resolve any issues raised on the merits of this complaint in any manner which would result in this plaintiff's name being placed on the ballot of primary concluded several weeks earlier. To this the plaintiff argues that, even if this be true, he might want to become a candidate in some future primary, and that upon this possibility he is entitled to a definitive pronouncement with reference to the reasonableness of the State of Florida's filing fees now. It...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. State Executive Committee of Dem. Party of Ga.
...480, 85 L.Ed. 800 (1940); Wright, Federal Courts, § 50ff. E. g., Clemmons v. C.O.R.E., 201 F.Supp. 737(3) (E.D.La.1962); Fair v. Adams, 233 F.Supp. 310(4) (N.D.Fla.1964); United States ex rel. Haughton v. Scranton, 257 F.Supp. 557(6) An analysis of the instant case leads to the conclusion t......
-
Fair v. Dekle
...be granted by it. Post election relief was similarly denied in Munoz v. Amador, 340 F.2d 590 (5 Cir. 1965). See also Fair v. Adams, 233 F.Supp. 310 (N.D.Fla.1964). Insofar as it concerns the November, 1964, election, the appellant's cause is Nor has the appellant stated a valid claim for re......
- Joyner v. Moore, Civ. A. No. 63-H-363.