Moore v. Commonwealth

696 S.W.3d 309

Natasha MOORE and Thomas Smith, Appellants

v.COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, EX REL. Russell COLEMAN, Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Kentucky; and Michael Adams, in His Official Capacity as Secretary of State of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, Appellees

NO. 2023-CA-0039-MR

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

March 22, 2024; 10:00 A.M.

Discretionary Review Denied by Supreme Court September 18, 2024

APPEAL FROM FRANKLIN CIRCUIT COURT, HONORABLE THOMAS D. WINGATE, JUDGE, ACTION NO. 22-CI-00898

BRIEFS FOR APPELLANTS: Janet L. Stumbo, Ned Pillersdorf, Prestonsburg, Kentucky.

BRIEF FOR APPELLEE COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY: Matthew F. Kuhn, Solicitor General, Michael R. Wajda, Assistant Solicitor General, Frankfort, Kentucky.

BEFORE: GOODWINE, LAMBERT, AND McNEILL, JUDGES.

OPINION

McNEILL, JUDGE:

Appellants, Natasha Moore ("Moore") and Thomas Smith ("Smith"), seek to prevent the elimination of Floyd Circuit Court Division II. Moore is a plaintiff in an employment action pending in Floyd Circuit Court and Smith is a former Floyd Circuit Court Division II Judge. In 2018, the General Assembly passed House Bill 348 ("HB 348") which reduced the number of circuit judges in Floyd County from three to two. Appellants sought a declaration of rights and preliminary injunction in Franklin Circuit Court, arguing HB 348 was unconstitutional because it was enacted without the required certification of necessity. The circuit court determined the appellants lacked standing and dismissed their complaint. Because we agree appellants lack standing, and additionally find House Bill 214 ("HB 214") renders their claims moot, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

In 2016, the Kentucky Supreme Court issued a "Proposed Kentucky Judicial Redistricting Plan for 2022" which recommended adjusting the number of judges in some judicial circuits based on the Judicial Workload Assessment Report results. It then issued a Certification of Necessity in 2017, certifying to the General Assembly the need for "the following number of district, circuit and family judges in each judicial circuit and district beginning on January 2, 2023[.]" The 31st Judicial Circuit (Floyd County) was designated one circuit court judge and one family court judge. The 2017 Certification of Necessity stipulated that "if any part of the judicial redistricting plan is rejected, then the entire Certification of Necessity is rendered void and unenforceable."

During the 2018 Regular Session, the General Assembly passed HB 348, which partially adopted the Proposed Judicial Redistricting Plan. Relevant to the appeal, HB 348 eliminated Floyd Circuit Court Division II¹ effective January 2, 2023. Several months later, the Kentucky Supreme Court issued a second Certification of Necessity, certifying "the need to eliminate one circuit court division in the 31st Judicial Circuit, Floyd Circuit Court." The 2018 Certification of Necessity had a delayed effective date of January 2, 2023, specifically referencing HB 348. It also provided that "no further Certification of Necessity shall be required of this Court."

In February 2022, the Kentucky Supreme Court issued another Certification of Necessity, specifically superseding the 2017 Certification. The 2018 Certification was not referenced. Less than two months later, the General Assembly passed HB 214. Section 2 of that bill allotted Floyd County one circuit and one family judge and was to take effect on January 2, 2023, the same effective date as HB 348.

On November 17, 2022, appellants filed a complaint in Franklin Circuit Court, alleging HB 348’s elimination of Floyd Circuit Court Division II was unconstitutional because no valid certification of necessity existed when HB 348 was passed. See Section 112(3) of the Kentucky Constitution ("[T]he General Assembly having power upon certification of the necessity therefor by the Supreme Court, to change the number of circuit judges in any judicial circuit."). Specifically, they argued the 2017 Certification of Necessity was rendered void when HB 348 did not fully adopt the proposed judicial redistricting plan. Further, the 2018 Certification of Necessity could not save the bill, because it was issued after HB 348 had become law.

The Commonwealth moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that appellants lacked standing to challenge the constitutionality of HB 348, that HB 348 was constitutional, that appellants’ claims were moot by the passage of HB 214, and that even if HB 348’s elimination of Floyd Circuit Court Division II was unconstitutional, the Supreme Court extended comity to the statute by issuing the 2018 Certification of Necessity after the bill had passed. The circuit court granted the motion to dismiss, holding that appellants lacked standing. This appeal followed.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

[1] "We review dismissals under CR² 12.02(f) de novo." Hardin v. Jefferson Cnty. Board of Education, 558 S.W.3d 1, 5 (Ky. App. 2018) (citation omitted). Further, "[w]hether Appellants have standing is a jurisdictional question of law that is reviewed de novo." Ward v. Westerfield, 653 S.W.3d 48, 51 (Ky. 2022), reh’g denied (Sep. 22, 2022) (citation omitted).

ANALYSIS

[2–4] Appellants argue the circuit court erred in ruling they lacked standing to challenge the elimination of Floyd Circuit Court Division II. "The Kentucky Constitution limits the jurisdiction of Kentucky courts to justiciable causes." Ward, 653 S.W.3d at 53. Thus, "all Kentucky courts have the constitutional duty to ascertain the issue of constitutional standing … to ensure that only justiciable causes proceed in court[.]" Commonwealth Cab. for Health & Fam. Servs., Dept. for Medicaid Servs. v. Sexton By and Through Appalachian Regional Healthcare, Inc., 566 S.W.3d 185, 192 (Ky. 2018) (emphasis omitted). Constitutional standing requires (1) injury, (2) causation, and (3) redressability. Id. at 196. In other words, "[a] plaintiff must allege personal injury fairly traceable to the defendant’s allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed by the requested relief." Id. (citation omitted). We consider each appellant’s standing separately.

[5, 6] The circuit court determined Moore could not establish a concrete and particularized injury and that any alleged injury was speculative. To have constitutional standing, a "plaintiff must have suffered an injury in fact - an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) con- crete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical." Ward, 653 S.W.3d at 51 (citing Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560, 112 S. Ct. 2130, 119 L. Ed. 2d 351 (1992)). "The party invoking jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing the elements of standing." Id.

[7–9] Moore’s claimed injury is that her pending employment case in Floyd Circuit Court will be delayed by the elimination of Division II. However, this speculative injury is insufficient to confer standing. City of Pikeville v. Kentucky Concealed Carry Coalition, Inc., 671 S.W.3d 258, 266 (Ky. 2023). "It is well-settled that [a]llegations of possible future injury do not satisfy the requirements of [standing]. A threatened injury must be ‘certainly impending’ to constitute injury in fact." Commonwealth v. Bredhold, 599 S.W.3d 409, 417 (Ky. 2020) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

Moore has not alleged her case has been delayed, she merely assumes it will be, arguing that "[c]ommon sense indicates that … [w]hen you go from two Circuit Courts to one Circuit Court it will logically double the remaining Circuit Court docket." But there is no evidence of any impending delay in her case due to the elimination of Division II as a court of general jurisdiction. In fact, a review of CourtNet³ shows her case has proceeded normally and even has a trial date scheduled for June 10, 2024. Because Moore failed to demonstrate any actual injury, she lacks constitutional standing to challenge HB 348.

[10] As to former Judge Smith, the circuit court held he failed to assert a redressable injury. At the time of the complaint, Smith was Floyd Circuit Court Division II Judge. Smith alleges the elimination of Division II denied him the opportunity to continue his judicial employment. He attempted to file for re-election in early 2022, but his paperwork was rejected because Division II would cease to exist on January 2, 2023.

The circuit court ruled because Smith failed to timely challenge the rejection of his paperwork, or HB 348, his claim was not redressable. Smith knew Division II would be eliminated in 2018, yet did not file his complaint until 2022, four years later. He similarly knew he would not be on the ballot in early 2022 when the Secretary of State rejected his application yet failed to challenge that rejection or seek an injunction until after the November 8, 2022 election. The court noted the election was over and it did not have power to extend his term, which expired just several days after the court’s ruling. The court also held Smith’s failure to challenge HB 214 left the court without a redressable issue because the elimination of Division II via HB 348 became moot upon HB 214’s enactment.

To properly understand the redressability issue as it relates to HB 214, we must quickly summarize appellants’ constitutional claim. Kentucky Constitution § 112(3) states: "The number of circuit judges in each district existing on the effective date of this amendment shall continue, the General Assembly having power upon certification of the necessity therefor by the Supreme Court, to change the number of circuit judges in any judicial circuit." (Emphasis added.) Appellants argue that when HB 348 was passed (eliminating Division II), no valid certification of necessity existed. It wasn’t until several months after HB 348 passed that the Supreme Court issued the 2018 Certification of Necessity, specifically certifying the need to eliminate a division of Floyd Circuit Court.

The Commonwealth asserts the 2018 Certification...