Dismissal of Royal-Chatman lawsuit will stand

*
A federal judge this week denied a motion by plaintiffs Gregory Charles Royal of Washington, D.C., and Kim Chatman of Eagle River, Alaska to reconsider his dismissal of their lawsuit.

Plaintiffs' suit had alleged that former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin violated their constitutional rights by not issuing a proclamation in 2007 to recognize a celebration in some states which commemorated the freeing of U.S. slaves.

U.S. District Judge Timothy Burgess issued the ruling to dismiss the motion Royal and Chatman had made in January, arguing they had only learned that the Juneteenth proclamation was issued retroactively just before Sarah Palin resigned as governor in July.

- JP

Stubborn Facts: Royal v. Palin

if you're not familiar with the events surrounding the lawsuit Gregory Charles Royal filed against Gov. Sarah Palin, Tim Lindell has written a very informative post which should bring you up to speed. Analysis of the legal merits of the case, however, have been hard to come by -- until now. We found a good one at Stubborn Facts. Here's an excerpt:

The AP reports on a federal case filed against Governor Palin. It is a pro se proceeding by a Washington D.C. musician, Royal, and an Alaskan mom. They complain that two years ago, the Governor failed to issue a "Juneteenth" proclamation celebrating "the end of slavery inthe United States." They allege that her failure to do so "depriv[ed]" them of some kind of "right[], privilege[], or immunit[y] secured by the Constitution and laws" of the United States. 

Well, actually, they don't allege that in so many words. But that is what they must be saying by filing a 1983 action, as their complaint purports to be, and that's where the problems begin. 

The plaintiffs must allege that Palin's inaction caused them to be deprived of a federal right. Gomez v. Toledo, 446 U.S. 635, 640 (1980). They don't. Deprivation of a state-created right won't suffice (see id., and Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137, 144 n.3 (1979)), and even if it would, the plaintiffs don't identify one. Merely pointing to AS 44.12.090, amended complaint, at 5-6, won't cut it, since the requirement that "[t]he governor shall issue a proclamation to commemorate ... Juneteenth" can hardly be said to confer on anyone an individual right to such a proclamation.

That's only the start of it...

Read the complete post here.

- JP