Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_11-cv-08204/USCOURTS-azd-3_11-cv-08204-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

John Paul Vicente and Shawn Marie 

Vicente, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

City of Prescott, Arizona, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV-11-08204-PCT-DGC

ORDER 

 Defendant, the Public Safety Personnel Retirement System (“PSPRS”), has filed a 

motion to dismiss the claim against it for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). Doc. 76. Neither Plaintiffs nor other Defendants 

oppose the motion. Docs. 79, 80. For the reasons that follow, the Court will grant the 

motion. 

 Plaintiff John Paul Vicente alleges that Defendants illegally retaliated against him 

for actions he took as the Chapter Vice President of the United Yavapai Firefighters, 

Prescott Chapter, International Association of Fire Fighters Local 3066. Doc. 62. In 

addition to other forms of retaliation, Plaintiff alleges that he was pressured under false 

pretenses to enter into the Deferred Retirement Option Plan (“DROP”) administered by 

PSPRS. Id. Plaintiff asks that the Court order PSPRS to rescind his forced enrollment in 

the DROP program. Id. at 17. 

 Pursuant to Rule 19, Defendants requested that the Court join Plaintiff’s wife and 

the Prescott Fire and Police Board of PSPRS as required parties. Doc. 39. The Court 

Case 3:11-cv-08204-DGC Document 81 Filed 06/27/13 Page 1 of 2
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

granted the motion. Doc. 48. Instead of joining the Prescott Fire and Police Board of 

PSPRS, Plaintiffs joined the statewide PSPRS. 

The Eleventh Amendment provides that “[t]he 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 Eleventh Amendment bars federal 

jurisdiction over suits against a non-consenting state. See, e.g., Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. 

Florida, 517 U.S. 44, 62-65 (1996). The Supreme Court has interpreted the Eleventh 

Amendment as prohibiting suits against a state by its own citizens. Port Auth. TransHudson Corp. v. Feeney, 495 U.S. 299, 304 (1990); Pennhurst State School and Hospital 

v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100 (1984). Suing a state agency is the functional equivalent 

of suing the state itself. See Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781 (1978). The Eleventh 

Amendment bars suit against a state agency regardless of the type of relief sought. See 

Pennhurst, 465 U.S. at 100; S. Pac. Transp. Co. v. City of Los Angeles, 922 F.2d 498, 508 

(9th Cir. 1990). 

 PSPRS is an agency of the state of Arizona as established by A.R.S. § 38-841, et 

seq. Thus the Eleventh Amendment bars the suit unless the State of Arizona consents. 

Because all parties agree that the State has not waived its Eleventh Amendment 

immunity, the Court must dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint against PSPRS. 

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 76) is granted. 

Dated this 27th day of June, 2013. 

Case 3:11-cv-08204-DGC Document 81 Filed 06/27/13 Page 2 of 2