{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "7",
    "document_number": "9:08-cv-01339-KAM",
    "date": "07/09/2019",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 9:08-cv-01339-KAM Document 209 Filed 07/09/19 Page 7 of 20 would redress claimed injury). II. The Claims Raised in the Petition Are Not Constitutionally ripe, and These Proceedings Must Thus Be Dismissed for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction. This Court must also dismiss these proceedings for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the Petitioners' claims are not constitutionally ripe. Ripeness, like standing, \"originate[s] from the Constitution's Article III requirement that the jurisdiction of the federal courts be limited to actual cases and controversies.\" Elend v. Basham, 471 F.3d 1199, 1204-05 (11th Cir. 2006). \"The ripeness doctrine keeps federal courts from deciding cases prematurely,\" Beaulieu v. City of Alabaster, 454 F.3d 1219, 1227 (11th Cir. 2006), and \"protects [them] from engaging in speculation or wasting their resources through the review of potential or abstract disputes,\" Digital Props., Inc. v. City of Plantation, 121 F.3d 586, 589 (11th Cir.1997).\" United States v. Rivera, 613 F.3d 1046, 1050 (11th Cir. 2010); see also Pittman v. Cole, 267 F.3d 1269, 1278 (11th Cir. 2001) (\"The ripeness doctrine prevent[s] the courts, through avoidance of premature adjudication, from entangling themselves in abstract disagreements . . . .\") (quoting Coalition for the Abolition of Marijuana Prohibition v. City of Atlanta, 219 F.3d 1301, 1315 (11th Cir. 2000) (citations and quotations omitted))). Under the ripeness doctrine, a court must therefore determine \"whether there is sufficient injury to meet Article III's requirement of a case or controversy and, if so, whether the claim is sufficiently mature, and the issues sufficiently defined and concrete, to permit effective decisionmaking by the court.\" In re Jacks, 642 F.3d 1323, 1332 (11th Cir. 2011) (quoting Cheffer v. Reno, 55 F.3d 1517, 1524 (11th Cir. 1995)). When evaluating whether a claim is ripe, a court considers: \"(1) the fitness of the issues for judicial decision, and (2) the hardship to the parties of withholding court consideration.\" Id. (quoting Cheffer, 55 F.3d at 1524 (citing Abbott Labs. v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 149 (1967))); 6 DOJ-OGR-00000311",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 9:08-cv-01339-KAM Document 209 Filed 07/09/19 Page 7 of 20",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "would redress claimed injury). II. The Claims Raised in the Petition Are Not Constitutionally ripe, and These Proceedings Must Thus Be Dismissed for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction. This Court must also dismiss these proceedings for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the Petitioners' claims are not constitutionally ripe. Ripeness, like standing, \"originate[s] from the Constitution's Article III requirement that the jurisdiction of the federal courts be limited to actual cases and controversies.\" Elend v. Basham, 471 F.3d 1199, 1204-05 (11th Cir. 2006). \"The ripeness doctrine keeps federal courts from deciding cases prematurely,\" Beaulieu v. City of Alabaster, 454 F.3d 1219, 1227 (11th Cir. 2006), and \"protects [them] from engaging in speculation or wasting their resources through the review of potential or abstract disputes,\" Digital Props., Inc. v. City of Plantation, 121 F.3d 586, 589 (11th Cir.1997).\" United States v. Rivera, 613 F.3d 1046, 1050 (11th Cir. 2010); see also Pittman v. Cole, 267 F.3d 1269, 1278 (11th Cir. 2001) (\"The ripeness doctrine prevent[s] the courts, through avoidance of premature adjudication, from entangling themselves in abstract disagreements . . . .\") (quoting Coalition for the Abolition of Marijuana Prohibition v. City of Atlanta, 219 F.3d 1301, 1315 (11th Cir. 2000) (citations and quotations omitted))). Under the ripeness doctrine, a court must therefore determine \"whether there is sufficient injury to meet Article III's requirement of a case or controversy and, if so, whether the claim is sufficiently mature, and the issues sufficiently defined and concrete, to permit effective decisionmaking by the court.\" In re Jacks, 642 F.3d 1323, 1332 (11th Cir. 2011) (quoting Cheffer v. Reno, 55 F.3d 1517, 1524 (11th Cir. 1995)). When evaluating whether a claim is ripe, a court considers: \"(1) the fitness of the issues for judicial decision, and (2) the hardship to the parties of withholding court consideration.\" Id. (quoting Cheffer, 55 F.3d at 1524 (citing Abbott Labs. v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 149 (1967)));",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "6",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00000311",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Elend",
      "Basham",
      "Beaulieu",
      "Pittman",
      "Cole",
      "Rivera",
      "Jacks",
      "Cheffer",
      "Reno"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "City of Alabaster",
      "Digital Props., Inc.",
      "City of Plantation",
      "United States",
      "Coalition for the Abolition of Marijuana Prohibition",
      "City of Atlanta",
      "Abbott Labs.",
      "Gardner"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "Alabaster",
      "Plantation",
      "Atlanta"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "07/09/2019",
      "1967"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "9:08-cv-01339-KAM",
      "DOJ-OGR-00000311"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing, specifically a page from a legal brief or memorandum. The text is dense and includes numerous citations to legal precedents. There are no visible redactions or damage to the document."
}