Opinion
CIVIL ACTION No. 03-2014, SECTION "T"(2)
September 15, 2003
ORDER AND REASONS
The defendant, the State of Louisiana, filed a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to FRCP Rules 12(b)(1) (6) which came before the Court for hearing on September 10, 2003. Oral argument was waived by the parties and the matter was taken under submission on the briefs only. The Court, having considered the record, the evidence submitted, the law and applicable jurisprudence, is fully advised in the premises and ready to rule.
I. Background:
This suit arises out of an incident whereupon Plaintiff was instructed by his father's caretakers to leave his father's home and not return without permission. Plaintiff contends that La. R.S. § 14 63.3 (Entry on or remaining in places or on land after being forbidden), cited by caretakers, is "unlawful when applied as a coercive and retaliatory instrument in the deprivation of protected civil rights," and seeks relief based on alleged violations of state law and the U.S. Constitution. This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 1985, 1986 1441 and 18 U.S.C. § 241 242.
II. Arguments by State of Louisiana In Support of Its Motion to Dismiss
The 11th Amendment bars the plaintiffs claims against the State of Louisiana. The State's immunity from suit under the 11th Amendment is subject to only two exceptions: Congress may abrogate it and the State may waive it.
The defendant submits that Louisiana has expressly refused to waive its 11th Amendment immunity from suit in federal court.
La. R.S. 13:5106. Delahoussaye v. City of New Iberia, 937 F.2d 144, 147 (5th Cir. 1991).
Congress has not abrogated the State's immunity in any of the federal statutes under which plaintiff has brought claims. Evidence of congressional intent to abrogate the State's 11th Amendment immunity "must be both unequivocal and textual." The defendant argues that Congress has not acted to abrogate the State's 11th Amendment immunity as to claims for deprivation of civil rights under color of state law. This includes claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 1985."
Dellmuth v. Muth, 109 S.Ct. 2397, 2401 (1989).
See: Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 96 S.Ct. 2666 (1976); Quern v. Jordan, 99 S.Ct. 1 1339 (1979); Edelman v. Jordan. 94 S.Ct. 1347(1974).
Anderson v. Phelps, 655 F. Supp. 560, 563-64 (M.D. La. 1985).
The defendant further argues that 42 U.S.C. § 1986 applies only where there is a § 1985 violation. Furthermore, the text of § 1986 does not contain an unequivocal textual abrogation of the State's 11th Amendment immunity, nor does the text of § 14141, also asserted by plaintiff.
Hamilton v. Chaffin, 506 F.2d 904, 914 (5th Cir. 1975); Galloway v. State of Louisiana, 817 F.2d 1154, 1159 at fn. 2 (5th Cir. 1987)
Additionally, the State is not a "person" under § 1983 and has no liability under that statute. Will v. Michigan Department of State Police, 109 S.Ct. 2304, 2309 23 12 (1989). It follows that the State likewise is not a "person" under either § 1985 or § 1986 and has no liability under those statutes.
With respect to plaintiffs claims under U.S.C. § 241 and § 242, the defendant states that both are criminal statutes and, even if one would create a civil cause of action for Mr. Baxter, neither contain an unequivocal textual abrogation of the State's 11th Amendment immunity.
The defendant also states that it is unclear whether plaintiff also asserts Louisiana claims. Reading his pro se complaint broadly, and assuming that he does, the 11th Amendment bars those claims as well. Congress has not abrogated the State's 11th Amendment immunity from suit on a state law claim in federal court.
Therefore, because the state did not waive immunity nor did Congress abrogate it, the 11th Amendment bars the plaintiffs claims against the State.
II. Arguments by the plaintiff in opposition to defendant's motion to dismiss
A. The Defendant has misunderstood and misstated the plaintiffs claims.
The plaintiff submits that while the underlying matter in this suit is not a dispute between family members, he does feel that the defendant offers a "fiction which can only be interpreted to suggest that the abuse of the disabled elderly should be trivialized, tolerated, ignored, or concealed when it is practiced among family members." He does not presume to assert a private claim against the state under 42 U.S.C. § 14141 or 18 U.S.C. § 241 or 242, but rather he means to "indicate federal subject matter jurisdiction over these" and assures the Court that, with Rule 26 discover)', additional evidence will show the State's violation of those and other statutes.
Plaintiff submits he claims a sufficient cause for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 12203 (Equal Opportunities for Individuals with Disabilities, prohibition against retaliation and coercion), § 12203 (enforcement), § 12202 (abrogation of state immunity), 29 U.S.C. § 79a (remedies), 42 U.S.C. § 2000d (prohibition against exclusion . . . denial of benefits), and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil action for deprivation of rights).
B. The 11th Amendment does not bar plaintiffs claims against the State of Louisiana.
Plaintiff asserts that the State's 11th Amendment immunity does not apply to his claims against the State for injunctive relief
III. Law and Analysis of the Court
A. Law on Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1)
Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs the manner in which defenses and objections to the pleadings are to be brought by defendants in federal civil actions.
Every defense, in law or in fact, to a claim for relief in any pleading, whether a claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, shall be asserted in the responsive pleading thereto if one is required, except that the following defenses may at the option of the pleader be made by motion: (1) lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, . . . Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1).
Rule 12(b)(1) requires that a defendant file a Motion to Dismiss the action if the court lacks jurisdiction. Without jurisdiction over the subject matter, the nature of the case, and the relief sought, a court is powerless to render a ruling on the conduct of persons or the status of the proceeding.
B. Law on Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6)
In considering a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), the complaint must be liberally construed in favor of the plaintiff, and all facts pleaded in the original complaint must be taken as true. A district court may not dismiss a complaint under FRCP 12(b)(6) "unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." The Fifth Circuit defines this strict standard as, `The question therefore is whether in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and with every doubt resolved in his behalf, the complaint states any valid claim for relief." C. Law on the 11th Amendment and Analysis of the Court
Campbell v. Wells Fargo Bank, 781 F.2d 440, 442 (5th Cir. 1980).
Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 101-102, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957); Blackburn v. Marshall, 42 F.3d 925, 931 (5th Cir. 1995).
Lowrey v. Texas AM University System, 117 F.3d 242 (5th Cir. 1997), citing 5 Charles A. Wright Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 1357, at 601 (1969).
Under the 11th Amendment, private individuals may not sue a non-consenting State in federal court. This immunity applies irrespective of the relief sought and irrespective of whether jurisdiction is asserted under this Court's original or pendent jurisdiction. This immunity is from suit is subject to two exceptions: The state may waive it and Congress may abrogate it.
Board of Trustees of University of Alabama v. Garrett, 121 S.Ct. 955, 962.
Oneida County, N.Y. v. Oneida Indian, etc., 105 S.Ct. 1245, 1260 (1985); Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman, 104 S.Ct. 900. 917-19 (1984); Bush v. Viterna, 795 F.2d 1203, 1207-08 (5lh Cir. 1986).
Louisiana has expressly refused to waives its 11th Amendment immunity from suit in federal court.
La. R.S. 13:5106. Delahoussaye v. City of New Iberia 937 F.2d 144, 147 (5th Cir. 1991).
Congress must express its intention to abrogate the 11th Amendment "in unmistakable language in the statute itself," and when it chooses to subject the States to federal jurisdiction, "it must do so specifically." Evidence of Congress' intent "must be both unequivocal and textual." Congress did not abrogate the State's immunity under any of the statutes cited by plaintiff.
Atascadero State Hospital v. Scanlon, 105 S.Ct. 3142, 3148 (1985).
Id. at 3149.
Dellmuth v. Muth, 109 S.Ct. 2397, 2401 (1989).
For the above reasons, and after the Court's consideration of plaintiffs claims which were raised outside of his Complaint and found to be irrelevant, the Court finds that the plaintiffs claims are barred by the 11th Amendment.
In accordance with the law and applicable jurisprudence, this Court holds that the motion discussed above is appropriate under the circumstances. As such, this Court finds in favor of the defendants, dismissing the claims against them pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(1) (6).
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss filed on behalf of the defendants, State of Louisiana, be and the same is hereby GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all claims of the plaintiffs against the defendants, State of Louisiana, be and the same are hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.