ABATE OF GEORGIA, INC. v. GEORGIA

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

No. 01-12215 Non-Argument Calendar.

Attorney(S)

John A. Roberts, The Roberts Law Firm, Atlanta, GA, for Plaintiff-Appellant. Beverly P. Downing, State Law Dept., Atlanta, GA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Judges

Robert Lanier Anderson
Joel Fredrick Dubina
John Cooper Godbold

Acts

The Public Health And Welfare — Civil Rights — Generally — Civil Action For Deprivation Of Rights

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

Plaintiff-Appellant American Bikers Active Toward Education ("ABATE") of Georgia, Inc. brought an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 challenging the constitutionality of Georgia's motorcycle helmet law, which requires all persons to wear protective headgear while operating or riding a motorcycle, as codified in GA. CODE ANN. § 40-6-315 (Supp. 1999). The defendants included the Governor of Georgia, the Commissioner of the Georgia Department of Public Safety, the Georgia Board of Public Safety, and its members in their official and individual capacities. The district court granted defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. ABATE appealed that dismissal.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the Board of Public Safety's failure to publish lists of approved protective headgear and eye-protective devices violates Plaintiff's rights under the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments.
Whether the Georgia motorcycle helmet statute is unconstitutionally vague.
Whether the statute violates due process or equal protection principles.
Whether Plaintiff's claims for damages are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Arguments of the Parties

Plaintiff-Appellant's Arguments

The Board's failure to publish lists of approved headgear and eye-protective devices infringes constitutional rights under the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments.
The statute is unconstitutionally vague because the absence of a published list prevents members from knowing what equipment satisfies statutory requirements.
Implied challenges to due process and equal protection under the law.

Defendants-Appellees' Arguments

The statute authorizes promulgation of standards by the Board, which have been established through regulations requiring manufacturers to affix permanent labels to approved headgear and eye-protective devices.
The statute does not require the Board to publish lists approving specific types of headgear, as confirmed by the Georgia Court of Appeals in Dowis v. State.
The statute is not unconstitutionally vague, does not implicate First Amendment speech protections, and does not violate due process or equal protection.
Claims for damages are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
McKusick v. City of Melbourne, Fla., 96 F.3d 478 (11th Cir. 1996)	Standard of review for motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) - de novo review.	The court applied de novo review to the district court's dismissal for failure to state a claim.
Dowis v. State, 243 Ga.App. 354, 533 S.E.2d 434 (2000)	Interpretation of Georgia statute regarding the Board's duty to approve specific types of headgear.	The court deferred to the Georgia Court of Appeals' interpretation that the statute does not require the Board to approve specific headgear types.
Picou v. Gillum, 874 F.2d 1519 (11th Cir. 1989)	Due process claims under the Fourteenth Amendment.	The court found Plaintiff's due process claims lacked merit based on this precedent.
Pennhurst State School Hospital v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (1984)	Eleventh Amendment bars claims for damages against states.	The court held that Plaintiff's claims for damages were barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began by reviewing the district court's dismissal de novo, applying the standard for failure to state a claim. It analyzed the statutory text of GA. CODE ANN. § 40-6-315, noting the Board's authority to promulgate standards and regulations for protective headgear and eye-protective devices. The court acknowledged that standards have been promulgated requiring manufacturers to affix permanent labels evidencing compliance. The court relied on the Georgia Court of Appeals' decision in Dowis v. State, which held that the statute does not mandate the Board to publish lists approving specific types of headgear.

Regarding constitutional challenges, the court rejected Plaintiff's argument that the Board's failure to publish lists violated constitutional rights, reasoning that the statute and regulations provide sufficient notice through labeling requirements. The court found the statute was not unconstitutionally vague on its face and that operating a motorcycle is not protected speech under the First Amendment. Due process claims were found without merit, and no equal protection issues were raised. Finally, the court held that claims for damages against the state defendants were barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Holding and Implications

The court AFFIRMED the district court's dismissal of Plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a claim.

The direct effect is that Georgia's motorcycle helmet law, including the regulatory scheme for approving protective headgear, was upheld as constitutional, and the dismissal of Plaintiff's claims was proper. The court did not establish new precedent but deferred to the Georgia Court of Appeals' interpretation of the state statute and reaffirmed established constitutional principles regarding statutory vagueness, due process, and Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Show full summary ...

ABATE OF GEORGIA, INC., and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State of GEORGIA, Georgia Department of Public Safety, Defendants-Appellees.

PER CURIAM:

Plaintiff-Appellant American Bikers Active Toward Education ("ABATE") of Georgia, Inc., filed this action against Roy E. Barnes, in his official capacity as Governor of Georgia, Commissioner Robert E. Hightower of the Georgia Department of Public Safety in his official and individual capacities, the Georgia Board of Public Safety ("Board"), and the members of the Board in their official and individual capacities. Plaintiff brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and challenges the constitutionality of Georgia's motorcycle helmet law that requires all persons to wear "protective headgear" while operating or riding a motorcycle. GA. CODE ANN. § 40-6-315 (Supp. 1999). The district court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss. Plaintiff now appeals. We affirm.

We review de novo a district court's order granting a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See McKusick v. City of Melbourne, Fla., 96 F.3d 478, 482 (11th Cir. 1996).

The statute at issue states in its relevant part:

(a) No person shall operate or ride upon a motorcycle unless he or she is wearing protective headgear which complies with standards established by the Board of Public Safety.

(b) No person shall operate or ride upon a motorcycle if the motorcycle is not equipped with a windshield unless he or she is wearing an eye-protective device of a type approved by the Board of Public Safety.

(c) This Code section shall not apply to persons riding within an enclosed cab or motorized cart. This Code section shall not apply to a person operating a three-wheeled motorcycle used only for agricultural purposes.

(d) The Board of Public Safety is authorized to approve or disapprove protective headgear and eye-protective devices required in this Code section and to issue and enforce regulations establishing standards and specifications for the approval thereof. The Board of Public Safety shall publish lists of all protective headgear and eye-protective devices by name and type which have been approved by it.

§ 40-6-315.

The statute was amended in the 2000 session of the Georgia General Assembly to substitute the newly created Commissioner of Motor Vehicle Safety as the applicable regulatory authority for the Board of Public Safety, effective July 1, 2001. See id.

Plaintiff first contends that the Board's failure to publish lists of approved headgear and eye-protective devices violates Plaintiff's rights under the First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Second, Plaintiff contends that the statute is unconstitutionally vague. Plaintiff alleges that the failure of the Board to publish a list of approved gear prevented ABATE's members from knowing what equipment satisfies the statutory requirements.

The district court did not err in granting Defendants' motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The statute authorizes the promulgation of rules and regulations enacting standards. O.C.G.A. § 40-6-315. Standards have been promulgated and they require manufactures to affix a permanent label to headgear and eye-protective devices showing compliance with the applicable standards. See GA. COMP. R. REGS. r. 570-12-.01 et. seq. (1999); See id. at r. 570-13-.01 et seq. Plaintiff asserts that the statute requires the Board to issue lists approving specific types of headgear, which Dowis rejected. See Dowis v. State, 243 Ga.App. 354, 355, 533 S.E.2d 434 (2000). The Georgia Court of Appeals interpreted the statute and stated that "[t]he statute does not require the Board to approve specific types of headgear." Dowis, 243 Ga.App. at 355, 533 S.E.2d 434. The district court did not err when it reasoned that it would be a gross intrusion for it to undercut this decision of the Georgia Court of Appeals, construing a Georgia statute.

Plaintiff raises a flurry of other issues. The statute is not unconstitutionally vague on its face. Operating a motorcycle is not speech within the First Amendment. Plaintiff's due process violation claims have no merit. See Picou v. Gillum, 874 F.2d 1519, 1521 (11th Cir. 1989). There is no equal protection issue. Plaintiff's claims for damages are barred by the Eleventh Amendment. See Pennhurst State School Hospital v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 104-106, 104 S.Ct. 900, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984).

AFFIRMED.