Harris v. Evans

• Decision Date: 17 May 1994
• Docket Number: No. 89-8589,89-8589
• Citation: 20 F.3d 1118
• Parties: Phillip Wayne HARRIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David EVANS, Commissioner, Lanson Newsome, Deputy Commissioner, A.G. Thomas, Warden, Defendants-Appellants.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit

Page 1118

20 F.3d 1118

Phillip Wayne HARRIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David EVANS, Commissioner, Lanson Newsome, Deputy Commissioner, A.G. Thomas, Warden, Defendants-Appellants.

No. 89-8589.

United States Court of Appeals Eleventh Circuit.

May 17, 1994.

Terry L. Long, Office of State Atty. Gen., William B. Hill, Daryl A. Robinson, Atlanta, GA, for defendants-appellants.

James G. Middlebrooks, Smith, Helms, Mullis & Moore, Charlotte, NC, for plaintiff-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia.

Before TJOFLAT, Chief Judge, KRAVITCH, HATCHETT, ANDERSON, EDMONDSON, COX, BIRCH, DUBINA, BLACK and CARNES, Circuit Judges, ^* and CLARK ^**, Senior Circuit Judge.

BIRCH, Circuit Judge:

In this appeal, we must decide whether an inmate has standing to assert the First Amendment rights of prison guards relative to a prison policy prohibiting its employees from communicating directly with the parole board on behalf of prisoners. Because we find that the prisoner does not have standing, we reverse and remand to the district court for dismissal based on lack of jurisdiction.

I. BACKGROUND

The appellee, Phillip Wayne Harris, filed this pro se action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. ¹ Harris, an inmate incarcerated in the Georgia state penal system, challenged a policy of the Georgia Department of Corrections ("DOC") prohibiting prison employees from making parole recommendations directly to the Georgia State Board of Pardons and Paroles. ² Harris claims that the policy violates the employees' free speech rights under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

In his complaint, Harris alleges that he had asked prison employees to write letters on his behalf, but that the DOC policy prevented them from doing so. See R1-2-4. As the appellants point out, Harris made no claim that there were prison employees who, but for the prison policy, would have written letters on his behalf. Harris, however, now argues that this claim is implied.

The case was assigned to a magistrate judge, and the defendants filed a motion to dismiss, asserting that prison employees do not have a First Amendment right to communicate directly with the parole board regarding the parole of particular inmates. The magistrate judge, treating the motion as one for summary judgment, recommended that the motion be denied. The district court adopted the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge and provided a certificate of immediate review. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1292(b). After the original panel affirmed the decision of the district court, ³ we vacated the decision and granted the appellants' petition for rehearing en banc.

II. DISCUSSION

A. The Nature of Standing

The Supreme Court's jurisprudence on standing has long been the object of spirited criticism from scholars and judges alike. See William A. Fletcher, The Structure of Standing, 98 Yale L.J. 221, 221 (1988). Critics contend that the caselaw lacks coherence and consistency. E.g., Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 129, 88 S.Ct. 1942, 1967, 20 L.Ed.2d 947 (1968) (Harlan, J., dissenting) (characterizing standing as a "word game played by secret rules"). In the midst of this confusion, it is imperative that we remain focused on the central purpose of the standing requirement: to ensure that the parties before the court have a concrete interest in the outcome of the proceedings such that they can be expected to frame the issues properly.

The concept of standing derives from the principle of separation of powers on which our government is founded. Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 750, 104 S.Ct. 3315, 3324, 82 L.Ed.2d 556 (1984). The inquiry is "founded in concern about the proper--and properly limited--role of the courts in a democratic society." Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 498, 95 S.Ct. 2197, 2205, 45 L.Ed.2d 343 (1975). We have held that "[t]he essence of a standing question is whether the plaintiff has alleged 'such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court so largely depends for the illumination of difficult constitutional questions.' " Saladin v. City of Milledgeville, 812 F.2d 687, 690 (11th Cir.1987) (quoting Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 204, 82 S.Ct. 691, 703, 7 L.Ed.2d 663 (1962)). ⁴

The Supreme Court has set forth an analytical framework for resolving standing issues that is comprised of both "constitutional" and "prudential" requirements. See Warth, 422 U.S. at 498-99, 95 S.Ct. at 2205; Saladin, 812 F.2d at 690. The constitutional requirements derive from Article III's limitation of federal jurisdiction to situations where a justiciable "case or controversy" exists between the litigants. Warth, 422 U.S. at 498, 95 S.Ct. at 2205. In order to satisfy this " 'irreducible' constitutional minimum," Saladin, 812 F.2d at 690, the plaintiff must show: (1) that he has suffered an actual or threatened injury, (2) that the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct of the defendant, and (3) that the injury is likely to be redressed by a favorable ruling. Id.; see Warth, 422 U.S. at 498-99, 95 S.Ct. at 2205.

In addition to these constitutional requirements, the court has fashioned three principles of judicial restraint, which have come to be known as "prudential" considerations. These self-imposed constraints are intended to ensure the proper role of the courts in our tripartite system of government by avoiding judicial resolution of abstract questions that would be more appropriately addressed by other governmental institutions. Warth, 422 U.S. at 500, 95 S.Ct. at 2205-06. We have summarized the three prudential considerations as follows:

1) whether the plaintiff's complaint falls within the zone of interests protected by the statute or constitutional provision at issue; 2) whether the complaint raises abstract questions amounting to generalized grievances which are more appropriately resolved by the legislative branches; and 3) whether the plaintiff is asserting his or her own legal rights and interests rather than the legal rights and interests of third parties.

Saladin, 812 F.2d at 690. This third prudential consideration, the general prohibition against third-party standing, is our primary concern in the instant case.

B. Third-party Standing

We find that Harris lacks standing in this case under the general principle that a litigant must assert his own legal rights and interests and may not ordinarily rely on the rights and interests of third parties. The prohibition against third-party standing promotes the fundamental purpose of the standing requirement by ensuring that the courts hear only concrete disputes between interested litigants who will frame the issues properly. See Schlesinger v. Reservists Committee to Stop the War, 418 U.S. 208, 220-21, 94 S.Ct. 2925, 2932, 41 L.Ed.2d 706 (1974).

In spite of these important purposes, the Supreme Court has recognized several factors that may justify exceptions to the general rule against third-party standing. ⁵ One of the Court's most recent pronouncements on the issue, Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400, 111 S.Ct. 1364, 113 L.Ed.2d 411 (1991), involved the rights of criminal defendants to raise the equal protection rights of jurors who are excluded on the basis of race. There, the Court characterized the third-party standing inquiry as follows:

We have recognized the right of litigants to bring actions on behalf of third parties, provided three important criteria are satisfied: the litigant must have suffered an "injury-in-fact," thus giving him or her a "sufficiently concrete interest" in the outcome of the issue in dispute; the litigant must have a close relation to the third party; and there must exist some hindrance to the third party's ability to protect his or her own interests.

Id. at 409-12, 111 S.Ct. at 1370-71 (citations omitted). ⁶ We have examined each of these factors and find that none justifies granting Harris standing to litigate the First Amendment rights of prison employees.

1. Injury in Fact

In order to have third-party standing, a party must first show that he has suffered an actual or threatened injury. Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106, 112, 96 S.Ct. 2868, 2873, 49 L.Ed.2d 826 (1976) (plurality opinion). In other words, the plaintiff must show that he has "a sufficiently concrete interest in the outcome of [the] suit to make it a case or controversy subject to a federal court's Art. III jurisdiction." Id. In describing the types of injuries that satisfy the Article III requirement, the Supreme Court has used the terms "distinct and palpable injury," Warth, 422 U.S. at 501, 95 S.Ct. at 2206, "particular concrete injury," United States v. Richardson, 418 U.S. 166, 177, 94 S.Ct. 2940, 2946, 41 L.Ed.2d 678 (1974), and "specific present objective harm," Laird v. Tatum, 408 U.S. 1, 14, 92 S.Ct. 2318, 2326, 33 L.Ed.2d 154 (1972).

We find that Harris has failed to make the requisite showing of a concrete injury in fact. Harris's complaint alleged only that he had requested that prison employees write recommendation letters on his behalf to the parole board, but that the DOC policy prevented them from doing so. Harris never made any showing that there were specific prison employees who, but for the prison policy, would have written favorable letters on his behalf. Moreover, Harris cannot show that the inability of prison employees to write letters harmed him in any specific, objective manner.

We are mindful, however, of the less stringent standards to which pro se litigants are held. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520, 92 S.Ct. 594, 595-96, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972). Given this liberal interpretation, and because several other factors counsel against the grant of third-party standing, we do not decide the case solely on the basis of Harris's inability to show an...