Opinion
CV-22-00384-PHX-DLR
05-06-2022
Nicholas Woodall, Plaintiff, v. State of Arizona, Defendant.
ORDER
DOUGLAS L. RAYES, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
The Court previously waived Plaintiff's fees but dismissed his first amended complaint (“FAC”) without prejudice. (Doc. 17.) Among other deficiencies, the Court explained that Plaintiff could not sue the State of Arizona for damages stemming from alleged constitutional violations because the State is not a person under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has now filed a second amended complaint (“SAC”), which again names the State, this time as the sole defendant. (Doc. 18.) Plaintiff accuses the State of enacting and enforcing ex post facto laws in violation of the Constitution and alleges that these laws have made him ineligible for certain jobs. Plaintiffs' SAC must be dismissed because, as previously explained, he cannot sue the State in federal court for violating his constitutional rights. See Marcotte v. Monroe Corrections Complex, 394 F.Supp.2d 1289, 1294 (W.D. Wash. 2005) (“‘Persons' liable for damages under Section 1983 include state employees sued in their individual capacities. States and their agencies and state employees sued in their official capacities are not proper defendants under Section 1983 and therefore cannot be sued under the statute.” (internal citations omitted)). This is true even if Plaintiff is seeking injunctive relief instead of damages. See Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908) (permitting suits to enjoin enforcement of unconstitutional laws to be brought against state officials responsible for enforcing those laws, but not against the state itself).
This is Plaintiff's second amended complaint, and third overall. Having identified these infirmities and given Plaintiff an opportunity to cure them, the Court finds further leave unwarranted.
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 18) is DISMISSED. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate the case.