F.O.P. elections. Assuming arguendo that plaintiffs have suffered a judicially cognizable injury, that injury simply cannot be traced to any conduct of the defendants. Instead, plaintiffs' injury stems from the provision of their own organization's by-laws requiring the use of the F.O.P. headquarters for the elections. Plaintiffs' argument that the failure of the F.O.P.'s Board of Directors to amend the by-laws was caused by defendants' earlier refusal to permit the use of municipal facilities for F.O.P. elections is unavailing. Such groundless speculation is insufficient to confer Article III standing upon plaintiffs. Simon v. Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights Organization, supra, at 42-43.
Any doubt about whether plaintiffs have standing is removed by considering whether the injury claimed "is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision." Id. at 38. If the Court were to reach the merits of plaintiffs' claims and hold that defendants have violated plaintiffs' constitutional right and grant plaintiffs the relief sought, plaintiffs would still be unable to use municipal facilities in F.O.P. elections because the F.O.P.'s by-laws do not permit it. The Court's action would thus be futile. See Doherty v. Rutgers School of Law-Newark, 651 F.2d 893, 899, 902 (3d Cir. 1981). Such an outcome is precisely the danger to be avoided by adherence to the requirement of standing.
For the reasons set forth above, plaintiffs' injury, if any, cannot fairly be traced to defendant's conduct, nor would the plaintiffs be likely to obtain redress if the Court granted the relief sought. Since plaintiffs therefore lack standing, the Court entered summary judgment in defendants' favor by Order of April 2, 1982.
AND NOW, TO WIT, this 2nd day of April, 1982, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. Defendants' motion for summary judgment is granted on the ground that plaintiffs lack standing;
2. Defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is denied as moot;
3. Defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted is denied as moot;
4. Defendants' motion for a more definite statement is denied as moot;
5. Judgment is hereby entered in favor of defendants the City of Philadelphia, William J. Green, W. Wilson Goode, Morton B. Solomon, Alan J. Davis and J. W. Brown, and against plaintiffs Francis X. Selgrath, Kenneth Rocks and Harry Cunningham;
6. A Memorandum in support of this Order will follow in due course.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.