Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02342/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02342-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-2342

___________

Sebastian Rucci, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Eastern

* District of Missouri.

Missouri Board for Architects, *

Professional Engineers, * [UNPUBLISHED]

Professional Land Surveyors and *

Landscape Architects, *

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: February 4, 2005

Filed: February 9, 2005

___________

Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, FAGG, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

The Missouri Board for Architects, Professional Engineers, Professional Land

Surveyors and Landscape Architects (the Board) appeals the district court’s denial of

its motions (1) to dismiss the action as barred by the Eleventh Amendment, and (2) to

alter or amend the order denying the motion to dismiss. We reverse the denial of both

motions. 

Appellate Case: 04-2342 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/09/2005 Entry ID: 1865457 
-2-

Sebastian Rucci filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against the Board, seeking

declaratory relief and alleging that the Board had violated and continued to violate

his Fourteenth Amendment rights by promulgating and enforcing arbitrary and

irrational licensing requirements. The district court concluded that the suit fell under

the Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908), exception to Eleventh Amendment

immunity, which applies when a plaintiff seeks prospective injunctive relief in federal

court against state officials. The court concluded that, although Mr. Rucci had not

named the Board members, the Board had waived the Ex parte Young requirement

that the state officials be named through Mo. Rev. Stat. § 327.031 (2001), which

states the Board may “sue and be sued . . . and its members need not be named as

parties.” We disagree, because nothing in section 327.031 manifests a clear and

unequivocal waiver of immunity from suit. Cf. Burk v. Beene, 948 F.2d 489, 493

(8th Cir. 1991) (waiver of sovereign immunity must be “clear and unequivocal”).

Thus, we conclude that Mr. Rucci’s suit against the Board was barred by the

Eleventh Amendment, and we reverse and remand for proceedings consistent with

this opinion. On remand, Mr. Rucci should be given leave to amend his complaint

to name the Board members as defendants.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-2342 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/09/2005 Entry ID: 1865457