From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

White v. Washington

United States District Court, Western District of Washington
Dec 9, 2021
3:21-cv-05095-BJR-JRC (W.D. Wash. Dec. 9, 2021)

Opinion

3:21-cv-05095-BJR-JRC

12-09-2021

MICHAEL ALBERT WHITE, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF WASHINGTON, et al., Defendant.


ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

BARBARA J. ROTHSTEIN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of Magistrate Judge J. Richard Creatura on Defendant's motion for summary judgment, as well as the remaining record, the Court hereby adopts the R&R and grants summary judgment for the State of Washington, dismissing Plaintiff's claims against the State. Because Plaintiff did not file a timely objection, the Court reviews the R&R only for clear error on the face of the record. Campbell v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 879 (1974).

As Magistrate Judge Creatura observed, the Eleventh Amendment has been “authoritatively construed to deprive federal courts of jurisdiction over suits by private persons against unconsenting States.” Dkt. No. 33 at 4 (quoting Seven Up Pete Venture v. Schweitzer, 523 F.3d 948, 952 (9th Cir. 2008)). “The ultimate guarantee of the Eleventh Amendment is that nonconsenting States may not be sued by private individuals in federal court.” Bd. of Trs. of Univ. of Ala. v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356, 363 (2001). That includes suits brought against the State 1 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21, 25 (1991). Unless the State waives its Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity or Congress exercises its power to override the immunity, Plaintiff cannot maintain a § 1983 suit against the State of Washington in federal court. See Will v. Mich. Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 65-66 (1989); see also Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 104 (1984). Although a Washington statute allows tort actions filed against the State in state court (Wash. Rev. Code § 4.92.110 (2015)), that statute does not authorize suits against the State in federal court. See McConnell v. Crtichlow, 661 F.2d 116, 117 & n.1 (9th Cir. 1981).

The Court concludes that Plaintiff's claims against the State of Washington are barred by the Eleventh Amendment. The R&R (Dkt. 33) is therefore adopted in full, and Defendant's motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 24) is granted. 2


Summaries of

White v. Washington

United States District Court, Western District of Washington
Dec 9, 2021
3:21-cv-05095-BJR-JRC (W.D. Wash. Dec. 9, 2021)
Case details for

White v. Washington

Case Details

Full title:MICHAEL ALBERT WHITE, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF WASHINGTON, et al., Defendant.

Court:United States District Court, Western District of Washington

Date published: Dec 9, 2021

Citations

3:21-cv-05095-BJR-JRC (W.D. Wash. Dec. 9, 2021)