Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-04586/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-04586-0/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

Pending before the Court is Defendant State of Arizona’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 

11). For the following reasons, the motion will be granted.

I. Background

Plaintiff brought this cause of action against the State of Arizona for monetary 

damages based on the failure to indict Snell & Wilmer, a local law firm, and some of its 

partners for alleged criminal acts. 

II. Legal Standard

Defendant has moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint pursuant to 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Defendant argues the First 

Amended Complaint is barred by the Eleventh Amendment, res judicata, Arizona’s Notice 

of Claim Statute, and the applicable statute of limitations. Defendant further argues that 

Plaintiff lacks standing and fails to state a valid claim for relief.

“If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the 

court must dismiss the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3); Augustine v. United States, 704 

William A. Graven,

 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

State of Arizona,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-19-04586-PHX-SPL

ORDER

Case 2:19-cv-04586-SPL Document 30 Filed 01/13/20 Page 1 of 3
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

F.2d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 1983) (“The defense of lack of subject matter jurisdiction cannot 

be waived, and the court is under a continuing duty to dismiss an action whenever it appears 

that the court lacks jurisdiction.”).

A Rule 12(b)(1) jurisdictional attack may be facial or factual. 

In a facial attack, the challenger asserts that the allegations 

contained in the complaint are insufficient on their face to 

invoke federal jurisdiction. By contrast, in a factual attack, the 

challenger disputes the truth of the allegations that, by 

themselves, would otherwise invoke federal jurisdiction.

Safe Air for Everyone v. Meyer, 373 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2004). A jurisdictional 

challenge based on Eleventh Amendment immunity is properly raised in a 12(b)(1) motion 

to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See In re Jackson, 184 F.3d 1046, 1048 

(9th Cir. 1999) (“Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity limits the jurisdiction of the 

federal courts and can be raised by a party at any time during judicial proceedings or by 

the court sua sponte.”); see also Halstead v. Motorcycle Safety Found., Inc., 71 F.Supp.2d 

464, 468 n.1 (E.D. Penn. 1999) (“The Eleventh Amendment is a jurisdictional bar which 

deprives federal courts of subject matter jurisdiction and therefore a motion raising 

Eleventh Amendment immunity may properly be considered a motion to dismiss the 

complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1).”). In 

resolving such a facial attack, the Court accepts the well-pleaded factual allegations as true 

and construes them in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. DaVinci Aircraft, 

Inc. v. United States, 926 F.3d 1117, 1122 (9th Cir. 2019).

III. Eleventh Amendment

The Eleventh Amendment states 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. Accordingly, absent waiver, consent, or an 

express abrogation of sovereign immunity by Congress, a state is immune from federal 

court suits brought by their own citizens or those of another state. Lindsey v. Matayoshi, 

950 F.Supp.2d 1159, 1165 (D. Haw. 2013). Here, because Plaintiff brings a claim for 

Case 2:19-cv-04586-SPL Document 30 Filed 01/13/20 Page 2 of 3
3

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

monetary damages against the State itself, and because Plaintiff has failed to argue that the 

claims fall within any legitimate exception, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s entire First 

Amended Complaint is barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Plaintiff has not provided the 

Court with any basis to find otherwise.1 See Comm. to Protect our Agric. Water v. 

Occidental Oil & Gas Co., 235 F.Supp.3d 1132, 1161 (E.D. Cal. 2017) (“An entity 

invoking Eleventh Amendment immunity generally bears the burden of asserting and 

ultimately proving those matters necessary to establish its defense. However, once a 

defendant meets this burden, the burden shifts to plaintiff to demonstrate that an exception 

to Eleventh Amendment immunity applies.” (internal citations omitted)).

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant State of Arizona’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 11) 

is granted and this action is dismissed in its entirety.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall terminate this action 

and enter judgment accordingly.

Dated this 13th day of January, 2020.

Honorable Steven P. Logan

United States District Judge

1 Because the Court finds that the claims are barred by the Eleventh Amendment, 

the Court declines to address the remaining arguments in Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss.

Case 2:19-cv-04586-SPL Document 30 Filed 01/13/20 Page 3 of 3