West Virginia Citizens Defense v. City of Martinsburg, No. 11-2231 (4th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-2231 WEST VIRGINIA CITIZENS DEFENSE Virginia nonprofit corporation, LEAGUE, INC., a West Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CITY OF MARTINSBURG, a West Virginia municipal corporation; GEORGE KAROS, personally and in his official capacity as the Mayor of the City of Martinsburg; MARK S. BALDWIN, personally and in his official capacity as the City Manager of the City of Martinsburg; KEVIN MILLER, personally and in his official capacity as the Chief of Police of the City of Martinsburg, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. John Preston Bailey, Chief District Judge. (3:11-cv-00005-JPB) Submitted: June 7, 2012 Decided: June 19, 2012 Before AGEE, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James M. Mullins, Jr., THE LAW OFFICES OF JAMES M. MULLINS, JR. PLLC, Beckley, West Virginia, for Appellant. Floyd M. Sayre, III, BOWLES RICE McDAVID GRAFF & LOVE, LLP, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: In January 2011, the West Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc. ( WVCDL ) filed in the district court a preenforcement challenge to § 545.14 of the Code of the City of Martinsburg, West Virginia, which imposes certain restrictions on the ability to possess a firearm within public buildings. The district court stayed the case, invoking the abstention doctrine first recognized in Railroad Comm n of Tex. v. Pullman Co., 312 U.S. 496 (1941). dispute now standing to centers press upon its WVCDL appealed, and the parties two issues: current (1) whether claims, and (2) WVCDL has whether the district court abused its discretion in staying the case under the Pullman review of abstention the record, doctrine. Because that has WVCDL we conclude, standing and on that a the district court did not abuse its discretion in abstaining under Pullman, we affirm the judgment of the district court. The Defendants Martinsburg ) § 545.14 on argue behalf that of its to the WVCDL lacks members. suit standing We review (collectively, to challenge questions of standing de novo, and the burden of establishing standing lies squarely on the party claiming subject-matter jurisdiction. Frank Krasner Enters., Ltd. v. Montgomery County, 401 F.3d 230, 234 (4th Cir. 2005). 3 An organization bringing suit on behalf of its members must satisfy three organizational requirements standing: (1) that in order to its members secure would have standing to sue as individuals; (2) that the interests it seeks to protect (3) that are individual the germane suit to does members. the not Equity organization s require In the Athletics, purpose; and participation Inc. v. of Dep t of Educ., 639 F.3d 91, 99 (4th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 1004 (2012). With respect to the first of these requirements, individual members must show that they suffered an actual or threatened injury that is concrete, particularized, and not conjectural, and that is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct and likely to be redressed by a favorable decision. Id. When a party brings a preenforcement challenge to a statute or regulation, it must allege an intention to engage in a course interest, of conduct and arguably there must affected exist a with a constitutional credible prosecution under the statute or regulation. threat of Va. Soc y for Human Life, Inc. v. Fed. Election Comm n, 263 F.3d 379, 386 (4th Cir. 2001) (quoting Babbitt v. United Farm Workers Nat l Union, 442 U.S. 289, 298 (1979)). the constitutionality of Nevertheless, a plaintiff contesting a criminal statute need not first expose himself to actual arrest or prosecution to be entitled to 4 challenge the statute that he claims deters the exercise of his constitutional rights. Babbitt, 442 U.S. at 298; Mobil Oil Corp. v. Att y Gen. of Va., 940 F.2d 73, 76 (4th Cir. 1991). Our review of the record convinces us that WVCDL has sufficiently alleged that at least one of its members intends to engage in conduct for which the prospect of prosecution is not merely imaginary or speculative. Va. Soc y for Human Life, 263 F.3d at 386; Equity in Athletics, 639 F.3d at 99. WVCDL therefore has standing to pursue the claims it pressed before the district court. We conclude nevertheless that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it determined to stay the case under the Pullman abstention doctrine. See Hennis v. Hemlick, 666 F.3d 270, 274 (4th Cir. 2012) (review of a district court s decision to abstain is for abuse of discretion). Because a district court abuses its discretion whenever its decision is guided by erroneous legal principles, there is little or no discretion to abstain in a case which does not meet traditional abstention requirements. Martin v. Stewart, 499 F.3d 360, 363 (4th Cir. 2007). Federal courts should abstain under Pullman where a case involves an open question of state law that is potentially dispositive inasmuch as its resolution 5 may moot the federal constitutional issue. Va. Office for Prot. & Advocacy v. Stewart, 131 S. Ct. 1632, 1644 (2011) (Kennedy, J., concurring); Educational Servs., Inc. v. Md. State Bd. for Higher Educ., 710 F.2d 170, 174 (4th Cir. 1983). impinging upon state The doctrine thus both avoids sovereignty and forestalls consideration of sensitive federal controversies. premature Stewart, 131 S. Ct. at 1644 (Kennedy, J., concurring); Nivens v. Gilchrist, 444 F.3d 237, 246 n.6 (4th Cir. 2006). In this case, WVCDL s assertion that the record is bereft of evidence demonstrating the presence of thorny and potentially dispositive state law questions is without merit, given that WVCDL s complaint squarely demonstrates the presence of numerous such issues. Nor do we countenance WVCDL s contention that Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 75-80 (1997), renders the district court s reliance on Pullman improper. In our view, the circumstances of this case would have supported either certifying a question of state law to the West abstention available Virginia doctrine. to the state courts Because district or both court, it invoking the Pullman options were equally was an not abuse of discretion for the court to choose the latter over the former. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 6 legal before contentions the court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED 7
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.
