Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01884/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01884-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

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

Bobbie Glen Cole Scott, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

State of Arizona; United States of

America, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 09-1882-PHX-JAT (Lead)

CV 09-1883-PHX-JAT (Cons)

CV 09-1884-PHX-JAT (Cons)

CV 09-1885-PHX-JAT (Cons)

ORDER

After Order of the Court (Doc. #15), Plaintiff filed his Amended and Consolidated

Complaint on October 13, 2009 (Doc. #16). Plaintiff named the State of Arizona as the sole

Defendant in the Amended Complaint. On December 8, 2009, Defendant moved to dismiss

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) on Eleventh Amendment immunity

grounds (Doc. #22).

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. Under the Eleventh Amendment, States are immune from

suit in federal court for state or federal causes of action by private parties. In re Mitchell, 209

F.3d 1111, 1115-16 (9th Cir. 2000), overruled in part on other grounds, Kimel v. Florida Bd.

of Regents, 528 U.S. 62 (2000). 

Case 2:09-cv-01884-JAT Document 8 Filed 06/02/10 Page 1 of 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

1

Even if the Court had jurisdiction over this case, it could not entertain criminal

accusations against the State of Arizona. And Plaintiff has not alleged any facts to support

a claim for fraud or discrimination. Plaintiff therefore could not state a claim for fraud or

discrimination. 

- 2 -

Although Eleventh Amendment immunity is not absolute, the United States Supreme

Court has recognized only two circumstances under which an individual may sue a State.

College Sav. Bank v. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Educ. Expense Bd., 527 U.S. 666, 670

(1999). First, Congress may authorize suit against the States in the exercise of its power to

enforce the Fourteenth Amendment. Id. Second, a State may waive its sovereign immunity

by consenting to suit. Id. If Congress has not abrogated Arizona’s Eleventh Amendment

immunity for purposes of this suit and Arizona has not waived that immunity, then the Court

lacks jurisdiction over this case. Id. at 691.

For Congress to abrogate state sovereign immunity, it must both: “(1) unequivocally

express its intent to do so, and (2) act pursuant to a valid exercise of power.” Hibbs v. Dep’t

of Human Res., 273 F.3d 844, 850 (9th Cir. 2001). To abrogate immunity, a statute or its

legislative history must indicate clear Congressional intent to abrogate. Los Angeles Branch

NAACP v. Los Angeles Unified Sch. Dist., 714 F.2d 946, 950 (9th Cir. 1983). And Congress

cannot abrogate state immunity when acting pursuant to its Article I powers, but can abrogate

state immunity by means of its enforcement power under section 5 of the Fourteenth

Amendment. Hibbs, 273 F.3d at 850.

For a State to waive its sovereign immunity, it must express its consent to suit

unequivocally. Id. at 851. A State cannot constructively waive its Eleventh Amendment

immunity. Id. 

Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint appears to allege a claim for denial of due process

pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment. At the very end of the Amended Complaint,

Plaintiff also attempts to accuse Defendant of “Felony auto theft, Felony kidnap and

Robbery, Fraud, Entrapment, Discrimination, Endangerment by fear of dangerous out [sic]

come to Mr. Scott.”1

 (Doc. #16, p.8.) 

Case 2:09-cv-01884-JAT Document 8 Filed 06/02/10 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

Plaintiff has not named a statute in which Congress clearly abrogated state immunity

that applies to this case. To the extent the Court Plaintiff attempts to allege a claim under 42

U.S.C. §1983, the claim fails on Eleventh Amendment immunity grounds. Section 1983 does

not lift the Eleventh Amendment immunity bar. Los Angeles Branch NAACP, 714 F.2d at

950. Nor does the Fourteenth Amendment, by itself, abrogate Eleventh Amendment

immunity. Id. at 950 n.5. Congress must act affirmatively under its Fourteenth Amendment

powers to waive immunity. Id. The Court finds that Congress has not abrogated Eleventh

Amendment immunity in this case.

Plaintiff has not argued that Arizona waived its sovereign immunity, and the Court

finds no evidence of waiver. Defendant raised the immunity issue at the first available

opportunity. The Court therefore finds that Arizona has not waived Eleventh Amendment

immunity in this case.

Because the Court finds that Congress has not abrogated Eleventh Amendment

immunity and the State of Arizona has not waived that immunity, the Court lacks jurisdiction

to adjudicate this case. The Court therefore grants Defendant’s Amended Motion to Dismiss

without leave to amend.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED GRANTING Defendant’s Amended Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #22).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DENYING as moot any other pending motions. 

DATED this 1st day of June, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-01884-JAT Document 8 Filed 06/02/10 Page 3 of 3