Muhammad v. Ford, 1050550.
Decision Date | 07 December 2007 |
Docket Number | 1050550. |
Citation | 986 So.2d 1158 |
Parties | Lateefah MUHAMMAD and Leon E. Frazier v. Representative Johnny FORD and David Warren, sheriff of Macon County. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Lateefah Muhammad, Tuskegee, for appellant.
Fred D. Gray, Jr., of Gray, Langford, Sapp, McGowan, Gray & Nathanson, Tuskegee, for appellees.
Lateefah Muhammad and Leon E. Frazier appeal from a judgment dismissing their action against Johnny Ford, in his capacity as a member of the Alabama House of Representatives, and David Warren, sheriff of Macon County.1 We affirm.
During the 2003 regular session of the Alabama Legislature, then Representative Ford sponsored House Bill 660, which proposed an amendment to the Alabama Constitution of 1901 that would provide for the legal operation of bingo games for eleemosynary purposes in Macon County and would grant the Macon County sheriff the authority to promulgate rules and regulations governing the operation of such bingo games in Macon County. House Bill 660 also provided for a referendum on the proposed constitutional amendment pursuant to Amendment No. 555, Ala. Const. 1901 (now § 284.01, Ala. Const. 1901 (Off.Recomp.)). The legislature enacted House Bill 660, which became Act No. 2003-124, Ala. Acts 2003. On November 4, 2003, voters approved the constitutional amendment proposed by Act No. 2003-124 in a referendum, and it became Amendment No. 744 to the Alabama Constitution of 1901 (now Local Amendments, Macon County § 1 (Off.Recomp.)). Amendment No. 744, Ala. Const.1901, provides:
On March 26, 2004, Muhammad and Frazier initiated this declaratory-judgment action in the Macon Circuit Court pursuant to § 6-6-220 et seq., Ala.Code 1975, seeking to have Act No. 2003-124 declared unconstitutional as violative of the separation-of-powers provision contained in § 43, Ala. Const.1901.2 On April 29, 2004, Ford and Warren filed a motion to dismiss the action.3 Their motion was premised on the arguments that the trial court lacked jurisdiction, that Muhammad and Frazier lacked standing, and that Muhammad and Frazier failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Muhammad and Frazier amended their complaint on May 24, 2004, to name Alabama Attorney General Troy King as a defendant. Attorney General King filed an acceptance and waiver of further service with the trial court on July 2, 2004.
Muhammad and Frazier again amended their complaint on November 21, 2005. In the second amended complaint, they alleged "that House Bill 660, ratified as Amendment 744 to the Alabama Constitution, violates the separation of powers doctrine under the Alabama Constitution, the due process of the laws under both the United States and Alabama Constitutions, and the equal protection clause under both the United States and Alabama Constitutions." On the same day Muhammad and Frazier filed a written response to Ford and Warren's motion to dismiss.
On November 22, 2005, the trial held a hearing on the motion to dismiss, and by order of December 13, 2005, the trial court dismissed Muhammad and Frazier's complaint without stating any reason for its decision. Muhammad and Frazier appeal.
Harper v. Brown, Stagner, Richardson, Inc., 873 So.2d 220, 223 (Ala.2003).
Before considering the merits of this appeal, this Court must first consider whether Muhammad and Frazier have standing to challenge the constitutionality of Amendment No. 744. Muhammad and Frazier contend that "they do have standing to bring this cause forward because a justiciable controversy exists." (Muhammad and Frazier's brief, p. 14.) However, our analysis is not as simple as whether a justiciable controversy exists. As this Court has previously observed:
" See City of Daphne v. City of Spanish Fort, 853 So.2d 933, 942 (Ala.2003) ; Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 752, 104 S.Ct. 3315, 82 L.Ed.2d 556 (1984) ('[T]he law of Art. III standing is built on a single basic idea—the idea of separation of powers.')."
Town of Cedar Bluff v. Citizens Caring for Children, 904 So.2d 1253, 1256 (Ala.2004). In Alabama Alcoholic Beverage Control Board v. Henri-Duval Winery, L.L.C., 890 So.2d 70 (Ala.2003), this Court adopted a more precise rule regarding standing articulated by the United States Supreme Court:
Muhammad and Frazier argue that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Surtees v. Vfj Ventures, Inc.
... ... See Muhammad v. Ford, 986 So.2d 1158, 1162 (Ala.2007) (in the absence of a legal injury, "there is no ... 8 ... ...
- Ex parte State ex rel. Ala. Policy Inst.
- D.A.R. v. R.E.L.
-
Weatherspoon v. Tillery Body Shop, Inc., No. 1081131 (Ala. 2/12/2010)
... ... See, e.g., Muhammad v. Ford , 986 So. 2d 1158, 1165 (Ala. 2007) ("`An argument not made on appeal is abandoned or ... ...