-3-statements regarding Plaintiff and that Defendant Porter has, along with the other Defendants, engaged in an intricate conspiracy to defraud and otherwise harmPlaintiff. Plaintiff cannot merely rest on these wild assertions especially whereDefendant Porter has denied Plaintiff’s allegations.As stated in KH Outdoor, L.L.C., et. al. v. Clay County, Florida:A plaintiff who invokes the jurisdiction of a federal court bears the burden of showing “(1) an injury in fact, meaning an injury that is concrete and particularized, and actual or imminent, (2) a causal connection between theinjury and the causal conduct, and (3) a likelihood that the injury will beredressed by a favorable decision.” Clearwater, 351 F. 3d at 1116 (citation andemphasis omitted). Each element is “an indispensable part of the plaintiff’scase” and “must be supported in the same way as any other matter on which the plaintiff bears the burden of proof,
with the matter and degree of evidencerequired at the successive stages of the litigation.” Lujan, 504 U.S. at 561, 112S. Ct. at 2136 (citation omitted). Also, the plaintiff must satisfy certain prudential principles established by courts. Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154,162, 117 S. Ct. 1154, 1161, 137 L. Ed. 2d 281 (1997). These immutablerequirements of the Constitution govern KH Outdoor’s Second AmendedComplaint.KH Outdoor, L.L.C., et al. v. Clay County, Florida, 482 F. 3d 1299, 1303 (11 Cir.
2007). Similarly, Plaintiff James Stegeman bears the burden of proving that he hassuffered particular and concrete injuries and that those injuries were caused by theconduct of the Defendants, in this case Defendant Porter.While it may satisfy Plaintiff to simply rest on the conclusory allegations of his
Case 1:06-cv-02954-WSD Document 82 Filed 06/06/2007 Page 3 of 8