context: Notwithstanding this contention, which refers only to Roe and not the other Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs have standing to pursue their declaratory judgment claim because an actual controversy exists between the parties as to the proper interpretation of the laws governing needle exchange, and because Plaintiffs are likely to suffer future harm as a result of Defendants' interpretation of Section 80.135. As this Court determined, Plaintiffs have satisfied the burden of pleading likelihood of future harm in this case.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 151 F.Supp.2d 495, 502-504
citation_a.parenthetical: no per se rule requiring any prior act as basis for finding future likelihood of future injury where ongoing pattern and practice of arresting and detaining needle exchange participants in the vicinity of needle exchange participants in the vicinity of needle exchange centers pled
citation_a.sentence: See Roe v. City of New York, 151 F.Supp.2d 495, 502-504 (S.D.N.Y.2001) (no per se rule requiring any prior act as basis for finding future likelihood of future injury where ongoing pattern and practice of arresting and detaining needle exchange participants in the vicinity of needle exchange participants in the vicinity of needle exchange centers pled); see also Deshawn v. Safir, 156 F.3d 340, 344 (2d Cir.1998) (likelihood of future harm requirement applies to claim for either injunctive or declaratory relief).'
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 156 F.3d 340, 344
citation_b.parenthetical: likelihood of future harm requirement applies to claim for either injunctive or declaratory relief
citation_b.sentence: See Roe v. City of New York, 151 F.Supp.2d 495, 502-504 (S.D.N.Y.2001) (no per se rule requiring any prior act as basis for finding future likelihood of future injury where ongoing pattern and practice of arresting and detaining needle exchange participants in the vicinity of needle exchange participants in the vicinity of needle exchange centers pled); see also Deshawn v. Safir, 156 F.3d 340, 344 (2d Cir.1998) (likelihood of future harm requirement applies to claim for either injunctive or declaratory relief).'