Opinion
Case No. 5:03cv220-MMP/WCS.
January 12, 2006
SECOND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
The first report and recommendation, doc. 39, concerned Plaintiff's motion for default judgment, doc. 31. The report and recommendation was adopted, and the motion for a default judgment was denied. Doc. 43.
Defendant Crist has filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff's pro se complaint raising Eleventh Amendment immunity to suit. Doc. 40. Plaintiff was given notice of his obligation to respond to the motion, doc. 41, and Plaintiff's timely response, doc. 42, has been considered.
The complaint in this case, filed on August 21, 2003, alleged that Plaintiff was wrongfully convicted and sentenced to 30 years in prison. Doc. 1. Plaintiff's petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 was granted by the United States District Court, Northern District of Florida, Panama City Division, on September 30, 1998, subject to the State of Florida being able to retry the case. Id. The State is alleged to have dropped the charge, although the Attorney General filed an appeal with the Eleventh Circuit concerning the result of the § 2254 petition. Id. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the decision of the District Court on August 18, 1999. Id. Plaintiff alleges that his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated and he seeks compensation for the eight years he served in prison before the conviction was overturned and he was released. Id.
Defendant Crist filed the motion to dismiss asserting Eleventh Amendment immunity bars Plaintiff's action and request for monetary damages. Doc. 40. In response, Plaintiff contends that "the State of Florida should be liable for violating the Plaintiff['s] civil rights; and he asserts that his claim has merit. Doc. 42, p. 1. Plaintiff also contends that the State was negligent in failing to release Plaintiff from custody. Id.
Analysis
It is well established that the Eleventh Amendment is an absolute bar to a § 1983 suit for monetary damages by an individual against a state or its agencies, or against officers or employees of the state or its agencies in their official capacities. Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 94 S. Ct. 1347, 39 L. Ed. 2d 662 (1974); Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 94 S. Ct. 1683, 40 L. Ed.2d 90 (1974). Thus, a § 1983 suit against an official sued in his "official capacity" is barred by the Eleventh Amendment, unless one of three exceptions applies. The first two exceptions are through a waiver of sovereign immunity. See Atascadero State Hosp. v. Scanlon, 473 U.S. 234, 238, 105 S. Ct. 3142, 87 L. Ed. 2d 171 (1985); Gamble v. Florida Dept. of Health and Rehab. Servs., 779 F.2d 1509 (11th Cir. 1986). Waiver may be either by the State or Congress may override a state's immunity pursuant to its power under § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment.Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Educ. Expense Bd. v. College Savings Bank, 527 U.S. 627, 119 S. Ct. 2199, 2205-06, 144 L. Ed. 2d 575 (1999). It is well established that Congress has not abrogated a state's immunity in enacting § 1983, Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 99 S. Ct. 1139, 59 L. Ed. 2d 358 (1979), neither has Florida waived its Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity and consented to suit in federal court under § 1983.Gamble, 779 F.2d at 1520.
The Eleventh Amendment provides: "The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State." U.S. CONST. XI.
The third remaining exception to this constitutional bar is through Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 28 S. Ct. 441, 52 L. Ed. 714 (1908). See Idaho v. Coeur d'Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. 261, 269, 117 S. Ct. 2028, 138 L. Ed. 2d 438 (1997) (reaffirming that prospective relief may be sought against a state official in federal court); Sandoval v. Hagan, 197 F.3d 484, 492 (11th Cir. 1999), citing Summit Medical Assoc. v. Pryor, 180 F.3d 1326, 1336-38 (11th Cir. 1999). That exception does not apply because Plaintiff does not seek injunctive relief, he only seeks monetary damages.
Here, Defendant Crist as the Attorney General for the State of Florida is protected by the Eleventh Amendment. Plaintiff's complaint only asserts claims against Defendant Crist in his official capacity, and only seeks monetary damages for the time he was incarcerated. The complaint must be dismissed as it is barred by the Eleventh Amendment of the United States Constitution.
Conclusion
In light of the foregoing, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that Defendant Charlie Crist's motion to dismiss, doc. 40, be GRANTED because Plaintiff's complaint for monetary damages is barred by force of the Eleventh Amendment.