Opinion
24-cv-00046-SK
03-08-2024
RAJESH K. SINHA, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Defendant.
ORDER OF REASSIGNMENT WITH REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
SALLIE KIM UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Defendant in the above captioned matter have not yet appeared and, thus, has not consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636. Therefore, the Court does not have authority to make a dispositive ruling in this case and ORDERS that this case be REASSIGNED to a District Judge with the following Report and Recommendation.
Plaintiff Rajesh K. Sinha filed a complaint and an application to proceed in forma pauperis. (Dkt Nos. 1, 3.) The Court granted his application based on his inability to pay but held that issuance of the summons and service would be determined separately. The Court allowed Plaintiff to amend his complaint in order to cure the deficiencies the Court identified. (Dkt. No. 4.) Upon review of Plaintiff's amended complaint (Dkt. No. 7), the Court concludes that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim and further amendment would be futile. The in forma pauperis statute provides that federal courts shall dismiss the case if, among other things, the complaint is frivolous or malicious, or fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Moreover, federal courts are under a duty to raise and decide issues of subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte at any time it appears subject matter jurisdiction may be lacking. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12; Augustine v. United States, 704 F.2d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 1983). If the Court determines that subject matter jurisdiction is lacking, the Court must dismiss the case. Augustine, 704 F.2d at 1077; Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3).
In his amended complaint, the Court observes that Plaintiff has appropriately refined and clarified his claims. (Dkt. No. 7.) However, now that Plaintiff's claims are clear, the Court concludes that Plaintiff's lawsuit is barred by sovereign immunity. In other words, Plaintiff has brought a suit against the State of California, and California has not consented to being sued and Congress has not abrogated California's sovereign immunity for the claims Plaintiff brings.
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. amend. XI.
“Although by its terms the Amendment applies only to suits against a State by citizens of another State, [the Supreme Court has] extended the Amendment's applicability to suits by citizens against their own States.” Bd. of Trustees of Univ. of Alabama v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356, 363 (2001), citing Kimel v. Florida Bd. of Regents, 528 U.S. 62, 72-73 (2000); College Savings Bank v. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Ed. Expense Bd., 527 U.S. 666, 669-70 (1999); Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44, 54 (1996); Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1, 15 (1890). “The ultimate guarantee of the Eleventh Amendment is that nonconsenting States may not be sued by private individuals in federal court.” Id., citing Kimel, 528 U.S. at 73. “Congress may abrogate the States' Eleventh Amendment immunity when it both unequivocally intends to do so and ‘act[s] pursuant to a valid grant of constitutional authority.'” Id, quoting Kimel, 528 U.S., at 73.
Plaintiff's first claim is an allegation that California has violated the Passport Denial Program because Plaintiff's passport has been revoked because Plaintiff is behind on his child support in excess of $2,500. See 42 U.S.C. § 654(31); Id. at 652(k). The Court observes that the relevant statutes create a system whereby states may coordinate with the Secretary of Health and Human Services and Secretary of State to refuse to issue a passport or revoke, restrict, or limit a passport issued previously to an individual who a state has determined is in arrears of child support in excess of $2,500. These statutes, and their surrounding provisions, do not indicate that Congress “unequivocally indend[ed]” to abrogate state sovereign immunity. Therefore, sovereign immunity bars this claim.
The Court notes that Plaintiff has fixed his gaze on federal statutes that criminalize failure to pay legal child support obligations. 18 U.S.C. § 228. As far as the Court is aware, Plaintiff is not under investigation or subject to an accusatory instrument for violating this federal crime. Thus, Plaintiff's arguments regarding how he did not violate this statue are misplaced. In addition, Plaintiff cites to the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. But Plaintiff does not sufficiently connect the dots between that act, which granted states greater latitude in administering social welfare programs, and the revocation of his passport.
Plaintiff's second claim fares no better. Plaintiff asserts that California is in violation of a federal guidelines called the “Final Rule: Flexibility, Efficiency, and Modernization in Child Support Enforcement Programs,” the Final Rule's relevant provisions, and Presidential Executive Order 13563. In a nutshell, Plaintiff argues that his child support payments have become impossible to pay because California has failed to comply with federal guidelines. The Court begins by noting that the provisions and executive order fail to indicate that Congress “unequivocally indend[ed]” to abrogate state sovereign immunity. Indeed, the Final Rule describes guidelines that states may implement regarding the calculation of child support payments that include taking into account a non-custodial parent's ability to pay child support. The executive order too speaks only to general principles. Moreover, Plaintiff states that California was granted an extension to October 2024 to comply with the Final Rule guidelines. Therefore, even if these guidelines did abrogate California's sovereign immunity, they are not yet applicable to Plaintiff's case. Thus, this claim also fails.
The Court reiterates that federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. See, e.g., Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). Federal courts can adjudicate only cases that the Constitution or Congress authorize them to adjudicate. See id. Federal courts are presumptively without jurisdiction over civil cases and the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction. Id. at 377. And as mentioned above, the Eleventh Amendment provides states sovereign immunity in cases where a citizen sues his or her home state. Garrett, 531 U.S. at 363. While there is an exception to this defense, it is not applicable in Plaintiff's case.
The Court concludes that Plaintiff has not sufficiently alleged a claim for which relief may be granted. Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that the District Court DISMISS this action. If Plaintiff wishes to file an objection to these recommendations, he may do so within fourteen days of being served with a copy of this Report. See 28 U.S.C § 636(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.