Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-16-04155/USCOURTS-ca10-16-04155-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

 TENTH CIRCUIT

ZACHARY R. E. RUSK,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

STATE OF UTAH,

Defendant - Appellee.

No. 16-4155

(D.C. No. 2:16-CV-00333-TC)

(D. Utah) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before LUCERO, MATHESON, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges. 

 

 Zachary R. E. Rusk, proceeding pro se,1

 appeals from the district court’s dismissal 

of his complaint against the State of Utah as barred by sovereign immunity. Exercising 

 

*After examining Appellant=s brief and the appellate record, this panel has 

determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination 

of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is 

therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not 

binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and 

collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. 

R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

1

 Because Mr. Rusk is proceeding pro se, we construe his pleadings liberally. See 

Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam); see also United States v. 

Pinson, 584 F.3d 972, 975 (10th Cir. 2009) (“[W]e must construe [a pro se litigant’s] 

arguments liberally; this rule of liberal construction stops, however, at the point at which 

we begin to serve as his advocate.”). 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

October 26, 2016

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 16-4155 Document: 01019710635 Date Filed: 10/26/2016 Page: 1 
- 2 - 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm. 

 Mr. Rusk’s complaint alleged the Utah Department of Workforce Services 

(“DWS”) engaged in “tortorous [sic] interference . . . via discrimination/retaliation” by 

declining to issue a customized letter he could include with his low-income housing 

application. App. at 6-7. It attempted to allege claims for damages under the Americans 

with Disabilities Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The district court 

dismissed his complaint without prejudice as barred by sovereign immunity under the 

Eleventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. We agree with the district court. 

 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. The Supreme Court has interpreted the Eleventh 

Amendment to bar citizens from suing states in federal court. See Edelman v. Jordan, 

415 U.S. 651, 662-63 (1974); Levy v. Kan. Dep’t of Social & Rehab. Servs., 789 F.3d 

1164, 1168 (10th Cir. 2015). “This jurisdictional bar applies regardless of the nature of 

the relief sought.” Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100 (1984). 

 No exception to Eleventh Amendment immunity applies here. First, the State of 

Utah has not consented to being sued in federal court for the type of claims Mr. Rusk 

brings. See Utah Code Ann. § 63G-7-501; Richins v. Indus. Const., Inc., 502 F.2d 1051, 

1055 (holding Utah’s statute authorizing suits against it in state court was a “positive 

expression of policy against suits against Utah in United States courts”). Second, 

Appellate Case: 16-4155 Document: 01019710635 Date Filed: 10/26/2016 Page: 2 
- 3 - 

Congress has not clearly abrogated sovereign immunity for claims like Mr. Rusk’s under 

its Fourteenth Amendment § 5 power. See Dellmuth v. Muth, 491 U.S. 223, 227-28 

(1989) (“Congress may abrogate the States’ constitutionally secured immunity from suit 

in federal court only by making its intention unmistakably clear in the language of the 

statute.” (quotations omitted)). Third, the Ex parte Young exception does not apply 

because Mr. Rusk has not sued state officers in their official capacities and does not 

request prospective relief. See Levy, 789 F.3d at 1169 (“[U]nder Ex parte Young, 209 

U.S. 123 (1908), a plaintiff may bring suit against individual state officers acting in their 

official capacities if the complaint alleges an ongoing violation of federal law and the 

plaintiff seeks prospective relief.” (internal citation altered) (quoting Muscogee (Creek) 

Nation v. Pruitt, 669 F.3d 1159, 1166 (10th Cir. 2012))). Because these and no other 

exception apply, we agree with the district court that sovereign immunity bars Mr. Rusk’s 

complaint against the State. 

 In his appellate brief, Mr. Rusk presents issues and arguments that he did not 

present in district court. We decline to address them here. See Somerlott v. Cherokee 

Nation Distrib., Inc., 686 F.3d 1144, 1150 (10th Cir. 2012) (declining to address an issue 

not presented to the district court). 

 We affirm. Because we affirm dismissal of Mr. Rusk’s complaint without 

prejudice for lack of jurisdiction, we deny his motion for preservation of evidence, 

recognizing that such a request is more appropriately addressed to the district court, 

Appellate Case: 16-4155 Document: 01019710635 Date Filed: 10/26/2016 Page: 3 
- 4 - 

where he can renew it upon establishing a jurisdictional basis for his complaint. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Scott M. Matheson, Jr. 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 16-4155 Document: 01019710635 Date Filed: 10/26/2016 Page: 4