Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01882/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01882-2/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

1

Plaintiff’s motion is titled “Petition for: Review the Unsettled Issue’s of Law (sic),”

but will be construed as a Motion to Reconsider pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Bobbie Gene Cole Scott, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

State of Arizona, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

Plaintiff Bobbie Glen Cole Scott (“Plaintiff”) moves this Court to reconsider its June

1st, 2010 Order. (Doc. 30). In that Order, the Court granted Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss.

(Doc. 28). For the following reasons, the Court denies Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider.1

I. Legal Standard

Generally, motions for reconsideration are appropriate only if: 1) the movant presents

newly discovered evidence; 2) the Court committed clear error or the initial decision was

manifestly unjust; or 3) an intervening change in controlling law has occurred. School Dist.

No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. AcandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). “No motion

for reconsideration shall repeat in any manner any oral or written argument made in support

of or in opposition to the original motion.” Motorola, Inc. v. J.B. Rodgers Mechanical

Contractors, Inc., 215 F.R.D. 581, 586 (D. Ariz. 2003). The Court ordinarily will deny “a

Case 2:09-cv-01882-JAT Document 33 Filed 08/04/10 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

- 2 -

motion for reconsideration of an Order absent a showing of manifest error or a showing of

new facts or legal authority that could not have been brought to its attention earlier with

reasonable diligence.” LRCiv.P. 7.2(g)(1).

II. Analysis

Here, Plaintiff has presented no newly discovered evidence and no intervening change

in controlling case law. Instead, Plaintiff suggests this Court committed a legal error by

dismissing Plaintiff’s case on the basis of state sovereign immunity under the Eleventh

Amendment. (Doc. 30). Now, for the first time, Plaintiff argues that the state’s sovereign

immunity has been abrogated by Congress under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and by the state under

A.R.S. § 12-821. (Doc. 28 at 2-4). Although the Court need not entertain such arguments

because Plaintiff could have raised them earlier in this litigation, see LRCiv. P. 7.2(g)(1),

neither 28 U.S.C. § 1331 nor A.R.S. § 12-821 abrogate the state’s sovereign immunity.

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). 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). For a state to abrogate its Eleventh Amendment immunity, it must express its consent

to suit unequivocally. Id.

Congress has not unequivocally abrogated state sovereign immunity with 28 U.S.C.

§ 1331. It is well settled that 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is a jurisdictional statute, not a waiver of the

federal government’s sovereign immunity. Army and Air Force Exchange Service v.

Sheehan, 456 U.S. 728, 733 (1982). Nor does 28 U.S.C. § 1331 abrogate states’ sovereign

immunity. Townsend v. Univ. of Alaska, 543 F.3d 478, 485 (9th Cir. 2008). The text of 28

U.S.C. § 1331 makes no mention of state sovereign immunity, much less “unequivocal”

Congressional intent to abrogate state sovereign immunity. See Hibbs, 273 F.3d at 850.

Therefore, 28 U.S.C. § 1331 does not change the Court’s prior conclusion that Plaintiff’s suit

must be dismissed based on Arizona’s sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment.

Case 2:09-cv-01882-JAT Document 33 Filed 08/04/10 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 -

Additionally, Arizona has not abrogated its own sovereign immunity under A.R.S. §

12-821. This statute provides that “[a]ll actions against any public entity or public employee

shall be brought within one year after the cause of action accrues and not afterward.” A.R.S.

§ 12-821. However, this section does not speak to who can sue the state and why. It requires

an inferential leap to conclude that A.R.S. § 12-821 abrogated Arizona’s sovereign immunity

in its entirety. To the contrary, A.R.S. § 12-820.02 provides that “[u]nless a public employee

. . . intended to cause injury or was grossly negligent, neither a public entity nor a public

employee is liable for . . . [t]he issuance of or failure to revoke or suspend any permit [or]

license . . . .” A.R.S. § 12-820.02(A)(5). Thus, Arizona has not expressed “unequivocal”

consent to this kind of suit. See Hibbs, 273 F.3d at 850. Therefore, this statute does not

change the Court’s previous conclusion that Plaintiff’s lawsuit must be dismissed based on

Arizona’s sovereign immunity.

Plaintiff also re-asserts his previous arguments that states can be sued in federal court

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and under the Fourteenth Amendment, notwithstanding the Eleventh

Amendment. (Doc. 30 at 3). However, as the Court explained in its prior order, neither of

these provisions abrogate state sovereign immunity. (Doc. 28 at 3); see L.A. Branch NAACP

v. L.A. Unified Sch. Dist., 714 F.2d 946, 950 (9th Cir. 1983).

III. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds no reason to overturn its prior ruling.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider (Doc. 30) is DENIED.

DATED this 4th day of August, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-01882-JAT Document 33 Filed 08/04/10 Page 3 of 3