Young v. Rutledge

E.D. Arkansas

Young v. Rutledge

DecidedOctober 7, 2020

Docket4:20-cv-01185

StatusUnknown

This text of Young v. Rutledge (Young v. Rutledge) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Young v. Rutledge, (E.D. Ark. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DIVISION OF ARKANSAS CENTRAL DIVISION HUEGUETTE NICOLE YOUNG PLAINTIFF v. 4:20-CV-01185-BRW LESLIE RUTLEDGE, ET AL. DEFENDANTS ORDER Plaintiff is a “long haul truck driver who is currently in between jobs” and a resident of Oregon. Plaintiff asserts that her “right to free speech will be violated . . . should [she] decide to take a trucking job that has her working in, or passing through, Arkansas because [she] will be required to wear a mask while doing routine shopping for supplies at Walmart in Arkansas . . . .”1 Plaintiff asserts that requiring people to wear masks violates the Constitution because masks “literally block[] Plaintiff’s ability to speak audibly and clearly . . . .”2 First, Plaintiff lacks standing to bring this case in Arkansas.3 Second, even if she had standing, the case must be dismissed, because Plaintiff’s Complaint is nonsensical and states no

cause of action against Defendants for which relief may be granted.4 Accordingly, this case is DISMISSED. All pending motions (Doc. Nos. 1, 3, 4) are DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED this 7th day of October, 2020. Billy Roy Wilson UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 1Doc. No. 2. 2Id. 3Pucket v. Hot Springs Sch. Dist. No. 23-2, 526 F.3d 1151, 1156–57 (8th Cir. 2008) (quoting Delorme v. United States, 354 F.3d 810, 815 (8th Cir. 2004) (“Standing, however, is a jurisdictional requirement, and thus ‘can be raised by the court sua sponte at any time during the litigation.’”).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DIVISION OF ARKANSAS CENTRAL DIVISION HUEGUETTE NICOLE YOUNG PLAINTIFF v. 4:20-CV-01185-BRW LESLIE RUTLEDGE, ET AL. DEFENDANTS ORDER Plaintiff is a “long haul truck driver who is currently in between jobs” and a resident of Oregon. Plaintiff asserts that her “right to free speech will be violated . . . should [she] decide to take a trucking job that has her working in, or passing through, Arkansas because [she] will be required to wear a mask while doing routine shopping for supplies at Walmart in Arkansas . . . .”1 Plaintiff asserts that requiring people to wear masks violates the Constitution because masks “literally block[] Plaintiff’s ability to speak audibly and clearly . . . .”2 First, Plaintiff lacks standing to bring this case in Arkansas.3 Second, even if she had standing, the case must be dismissed, because Plaintiff’s Complaint is nonsensical and states no

cause of action against Defendants for which relief may be granted.4 Accordingly, this case is DISMISSED. All pending motions (Doc. Nos. 1, 3, 4) are DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED this 7th day of October, 2020. Billy Roy Wilson UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 1Doc. No. 2. 2Id. 3Pucket v. Hot Springs Sch. Dist. No. 23-2, 526 F.3d 1151, 1156–57 (8th Cir. 2008) (quoting Delorme v. United States, 354 F.3d 810, 815 (8th Cir. 2004) (“Standing, however, is a jurisdictional requirement, and thus ‘can be raised by the court sua sponte at any time during the litigation.’”).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Young v. Rutledge, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/young-v-rutledge-ared-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack