152703P.pdf   11/02/2016  Gary Hughes  v.  City of Cedar Rapids
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  15-2703
   U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids   
   [PUBLISHED] [Benton, Author, with Loken and Beam, Circuit Judges] 
   Civil case - Traffic cameras. In action by drivers claiming the City's use 
   of automated traffic cameras to ticket red-light violations violated their 
   fde process rights, the fundamental right to travel, Iowa Code Section 
   602.6101 and caused unjust enrichment to the City and the company 
   providing the service, the district court did not err in finding plaintiff 
   Hughes lacked standing as he had no injury in fact; further the court 
   correctly determined plaintiff Mazgaj did not have standing to assert his 
   wife's claim; however, plaintiff Lee's claims did establish standing as he 
   has the hardship of a citation and the costs of litigation; while the 
   district court did not err in finding Mazgaj and Hughes lacked standing, 
   the court never had jurisdiction over their claims and it should have 
   remanded their claims to the state court from which the action had been 
   removed; with respect to six other named plaintiffs, those drivers 
   established standing to bring procedural-due-process claims; however, they 
   failed to show a procedural due process violation as they did not show the 
   risk of an erroneous deprivation as a result of the procedures employed; 
   allegations that the administrative process provided for the tickets was a 
   "rubber stamp" and a "sham" were too conclusory to support their claim for 
   violation of their procedural-due-process rights; claims that the system 
   violated their substantive rights - such as the right to travel and the 
   Privileges and Immunities Clause - is rejected; Equal Protection claim 
   rejected; claim that the procedures violated Iowa Department of 
   Transportation rules was not ripe as that issue is pending in state 
   court,and the district court should dismiss without prejudice plaintiff's 
   state-law claims based on an alleged violation of the rules; unjust 
   enrichment claim rejected.