[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-15696 MAY 24, 2006
Non-Argument Calendar THOMAS K. KAHN
CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 05-20304-CV-PAS
JACOB ALKOV,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
_________________________
(May 24 ,2006)
Before ANDERSON, BIRCH and BARKETT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Upon de novo review of the record in this case, we affirm the district court's
dismissal of Jacob Alkov's complaint that Defendant's rejection of certain
applications submitted under the City's Nonprofit Vending Ordinance ("the
Ordinance"), Miami Beach City Code § 86-143, violated the federal Equal
Protection Clause. The court properly found that Alkov lacks standing to bring
suit under the Ordinance, which creates rights in non-profit organizations only.
Alkov, a self-described vendor and independent contractor, clearly does not fit that
description,1 and he offers no reason why his should be one of those "exceptional
cases where plaintiffs are permitted to raise the rights of others." Wolff v. Cash 4
Tiles, 351 F.3d 1348, 1357 (11th Cir. 2003). On appeal, Alkov attempts to escape
this conclusion by arguing that the Ordinance applies to commercial vendors like
himself as well as to non-profit organizations. This reading manifestly contradicts
the Ordinance’s unambiguous language and express intent. See Miami Beach
City Code § 86-141 and accompanying section on "Applicability of [the] Article.”
Finally, we agree with the district court that Alkov still would lack standing even if
the ordinance applied to commercial vendors, because the only applications whose
rejection he contests were submitted on behalf of non-profit organizations.
AFFIRMED.
1
As the district court correctly noted, "Nowhere has Plaintiff alleged that he is a
nonprofit organization within the meaning of the Ordinance. Plaintiff does not assert that he has
an interest in distributing books, literature, and message-bearing merchandise in furtherance of
promoting his nonprofit organization or that he intended personally to make use of the denied
permits."
2