Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-05308/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-05308-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Zakariah LaFreniere
Plaintiff
Regents of the University of California
Defendant

Document Text:

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ZAKARIAH LAFRENIERE,

Plaintiff,

 v.

THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF

CALIFORNIA,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 04-05308 CRB

ORDER RE: DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO DISMISS

Plaintiff Zakariah Lafreniere, proceeding in pro per, has filed this action against

defendant The Regents of the University California (“The Regents”) challenging his

expulsion from the University of California at Berkeley pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1981. 

Now pending before the Court is The Regents’ second motion to dismiss, in which defendant

contends that plaintiff’s claim is barred by the Eleventh Amendment. At a Case

Management Conference on August 4, 2006, the Court granted plaintiff’s request to expedite

briefing on this motion. After carefully considering the parties’ papers, the Court concludes

that oral argument is unnecessary pursuant to Local Rule 7-1(b), and defendant’s motion is

hereby GRANTED.

The Eleventh Amendment of the United States Constitution prohibits lawsuits by

citizens of a state against the state in federal courts. In particular, “[t]he Eleventh

Amendment bars suits which seek either damages or injunctive relief against a state, an ‘arm

of the state,’ its instrumentalities, or its agencies.” Franceschi v. Schwartz, 57 F.3d 828, 831

Case 3:04-cv-05308-CRB Document 50 Filed 08/14/06 Page 1 of 3
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

(9th Cir. 1995). It is well-settled that The Regents is considered an instrumentality, or arm,

of the state for purposes of Eleventh Amendment immunity. See Jackson v. Hayakawa, 682

F.2d 1344, 1350 (9th Cir. 1982). Thus, the Court finds that defendant is immune from suit in

federal court under the Eleventh Amendment.

Plaintiff further contends that defendant waived its right to invoke Eleventh

Amendment immunity by failing to raise the issue in its first motion to dismiss, thereby

voluntarily submitting to this Court’s jurisdiction. Under this theory, a state may waive its

Eleventh Amendment immunity when its “conduct during the litigation clearly manifests

acceptance of the federal court’s jurisdiction or is otherwise incompatible with an assertion

of Eleventh Amendment immunity.” Hill v. Blind Indus. and Servs. of Maryland, 179 F.3d

754, 759 (9th Cir. 1999). In Hill, the Court reemphasized that a state could “waive [its]

Eleventh Amendment protection by voluntarily appearing and defending on the merits.” Id.

(quoting Fordyce v. City of Seattle, 55 F.3d 436, 441 (9th Cir. 1995)). There, the court found

that the state’s decision to wait until trial before invoking its Eleventh Amendment immunity

constituted a waiver of its protections. Plaintiff argues that The Regents’ original motion to

dismiss indicated that it was “adequately notified of the pendency of the suit and of the

particular matters at issue,” but decided to defend itself in this Court. Id. The Court

disagrees.

Defendant’s original motion to dismiss raised two purported procedural bars to

plaintiff’s lawsuit. In particular, defendant argued that plaintiff’s lawsuit was barred by the

doctrine of res judicata and by the relevant statute of limitations. Neither of those arguments

addressed the merits of plaintiff’s allegations. To the contrary, courts that have found a state

to waive its Eleventh Amendment immunity under this theory of consent have only done so

when the state has actively defended itself on the merits of a particular claim prior to

invoking its constitutional immunity. See Hill, 179 F.3d at 759 (listing cases). Here, neither

party had addressed the merits of plaintiff’s claim before The Regents invoked its Eleventh

Amendment immunity. Moreover, The Regents’ decision in moving to dismiss plaintiff’s

Complaint based on procedural barriers alone did not “clearly manifest acceptance” of this

Case 3:04-cv-05308-CRB Document 50 Filed 08/14/06 Page 2 of 3
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

G:\CRBALL\2004\5308\order mtd 11th Amendment.wpd 3

Court’s jurisdiction, nor was it incompatible with an assertion of Eleventh Amendment

protections. Accordingly, the Court finds that The Regents has not waived its Eleventh

Amendment immunity from suit in federal court.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes that The Regents timely and properly

invoked its Eleventh Amendment immunity from this lawsuit in this Court. Because such

protections are jurisdictional in nature, the Court hereby GRANTS defendant’s motion to

dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 14, 2006

 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:04-cv-05308-CRB Document 50 Filed 08/14/06 Page 3 of 3