Doretta Joyce Holyfield-Vega v. Alabama Supreme Court/Honorable Roy Moore, et al, No. 13-10999 (11th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 13-10999 Date Filed: 01/08/2014 Page: 1 of 3 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 13-10999 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 5:12-cv-04023-AKK DORETTA JOYCE HOLYFIELD-VEGA, Min., "The Messenger", Plaintiff-Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, THE Leaders, Defendant, ALABAMA SUPREME COURT/ HONORABLE ROY MOORE, ALABAMA LEGISLATURE MEMBERS, US SUPREME COURT/ HONORABLE JOHN ROBERTS, Defendants-Appellees. Case: 13-10999 Date Filed: 01/08/2014 Page: 2 of 3 ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama ________________________ (January 8, 2014) Before MARCUS, PRYOR and FAY, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Doretta Holyfield-Vega appeals pro se the dismissal with prejudice of her complaint for injunctive relief against officials of the United States and the State of Alabama. The district court ruled that Holyfield-Vega lacked standing to sue the officials. We affirm. The district court correctly concluded that Holyfield-Vega failed to allege that she had suffered an injury in fact. To have standing, a plaintiff must establish that she has incurred an injury to a protected interest that is concrete and particularized. Fla. Wildlife Fed n, Inc. v. S. Fla. Water Mgmt. Dist., 647 F.3d 1296, 1302 (11th Cir. 2011). Holyfield-Vega alleged that [t]he removal of pray[er] from school and other areas by federal and state officials violated her right to the free exercise of religion under the First Amendment, but HolyfieldVega failed to describe how she had been injured by the officials conduct. Holyfield-Vega argued that she was entitled to proceed [a]s a concern[ed] United States Citizen, but a plaintiff does not state an Article III case or controversy by 2 Case: 13-10999 Date Filed: 01/08/2014 Page: 3 of 3 claiming only harm to [her] and every citizen s interest in proper application of the Constitution . . . and seeking relief that no more directly and tangibly benefits [her] than it does the public at large, Lance v. Coffman, 549 U.S. 437, 439, 127 S. Ct. 1194, 1196 (2007) (quoting Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 573 74, 112 S. Ct. 2130, 2143 (1992)); Fairchild v. Hughes, 258 U.S. 126, 42 S. Ct. 274 (1922). The district court correctly dismissed Holyfield-Vega s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We AFFIRM the dismissal of Holyfield-Vega s complaint. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
