United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Augusta Division
March 11, 2015
DAVID FREDERICK, Plaintiff,
DEMOND BROWN, individually and in his capacity as an officer with the Augusta-Richmond County Sheriff's Department, et al., Defendants.
J. RANDAL HALL, District Judge.
In this action, Plaintiff David Frederick alleges Augusta-Richmond County, Georgia and eight named officers of the Augusta-Richmond County Sheriff's Department, among others unnamed, deprived him of his First, Fourth, Fifth, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights when he was arrested, purportedly with excessive force, for violating Augusta-Richmond County Ordinance No. 7042 ("the Ordinance"), a juvenile curfew ordinance. On March 25, 2014, this Court granted the parties' consent motion to stay all other proceedings in this matter pending resolution of Mr. Frederick's facial constitutional challenge. (Doc. 33.)
Mr. Frederick's brief (Doc. 34) appears to raise four distinct theories to invalidate the Ordinance: (1) vagueness, (2) overbreadth, (3) fundamental right to travel; (4) fundamental right to rear children without undue government interference. Neither Mr. Frederick nor Defendants, however, have broached the issue of whether Mr. Frederick's First Amendment claims - facial and as-applied - are justiciable. "An essential prerequisite to a federal court's power to entertain a suit is an Article III case or controversy." Austin & Laurato, P.A. v. United States, 539 F.App'x 957, 960 (11th Cir. 2013), cert, denied, 134 S.Ct. 1311 (2014). The Court's preliminary review raises considerable doubt that Mr. Frederick has standing to challenge the Ordinance under one or more of the aforementioned theories and/or his claims are moot because Mr. Frederick turned 18 approximately two years prior to filing this suit (see Compl., Doc. 1, K 9).
Accordingly, a hearing shall be held on WEDNESDAY, APRIL 1, 2015 at 10:00 A.M. in Courtroom 2 of the Federal Justice Center located at 600 James Brown Boulevard, Augusta, Georgia, 30901. The Court DIRECTS the parties to prepare argument on Article III standing and mootness as is relevant to Mr. Frederick's First Amendment claims.