Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01684/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01684-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Arizona Board of Regents
Defendant
Frances Baker Dickman
Plaintiff
Barbara Tinsley
Defendant

Document Text:

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

Frances Baker Dickman,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Arizona Board of Regents, a political

subdivision of the State of Arizona; Dr.

Barbara Tinsley,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 08-1684-PHX-MHM

ORDER

Currently before the Court is Defendant Arizona Board of Regents’ (“ABOR”)

Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Third Claim for Relief for failure to state a claim upon

which relief can be granted pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (Dkt. #2). Plaintiff

Frances Baker Dickman (“Plaintiff”) filed a Response (Dkt. #9) and ABOR filed a Reply

(Dkt. #10). Having reviewed the pleadings, the Court enters the following Order.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

A Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss will not be granted unless it appears beyond a

doubt that the plaintiff cannot prove a set of facts to support the claim that would entitle

the plaintiff to relief. Morely v. Walker, 175 F.3d 756, 759 (9th Cir. 1999). When

determining whether a plaintiff has sufficiently stated a claim in his complaint, all

allegations of material fact are taken as true and are construed in the light most favorable

to the non-moving party. Whyler Summit Partnership v. Turner Broadcasting Sys., Inc.,

Case 2:08-cv-01684-MHM Document 11 Filed 10/22/08 Page 1 of 4
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 -

135 F.3d 658, 661 (9th Cir. 1998). However, the Court is not required to accept as true

allegations that contradict matters properly subject to judicial notice, and that are merely

conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable inferences. See Spreewell v.

Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir. 2001). 

Generally, “a district court may not consider any material beyond the pleadings in

ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion.” Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 688 (9th

Cir. 2001) (citation omitted). However, a district court may consider material that is

properly submitted as part of the complaint, as well as documents that are not physically

attached to the complaint as long as their authenticity is not contested and the plaintiff’s

complaint necessarily relies on them. Id. 

DISCUSSION

ABOR argues that Plaintiff’s third claim for relief fails to state a claim because

ABOR is not considered a “person” under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Section 1983 provides for

liability against a “person” who, acting under color of law, deprives another person of

federal or constitutional rights. 42 U.S.C. § 1983. “States or governmental entities that

are considered ‘arms of the State’ for Eleventh Amendment purposes are not ‘persons’

under § 1983.” Will v. Michigan Dept. Of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 65-66 (1989). 

However, “[w]hen sued for prospective injunctive relief, a state official in his official

capacity is considered a ‘person’ for § 1983 purposes.” Flint v. Dennison, 488 F.3d 816,

825 (9th Cir. 2007) (emphasis in original) (citation omitted). This exception recognizes

the doctrine of Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 128 (1908), that a suit for prospective

injunctive relief provides a narrow exception to Eleventh Amendment immunity. Id.

 Here, Plaintiff contends that Eleventh Amendment immunity should not apply

since ABOR is neither a State or a state official. In order to determine that a

governmental entity is an arm of the state for Eleventh Amendment purposes, the Court

considers the following factors: (1) whether a money judgment would be satisfied out of

state funds; (2) whether the entity performs central governmental functions; (3) whether

the entity may sue or be sued; (4) whether the entity has the power to take property in its

Case 2:08-cv-01684-MHM Document 11 Filed 10/22/08 Page 2 of 4
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 -

own name or only in the name of the state; and (5) the corporate status of the entity. See

Mitchell v. Los Angeles, 861 F.2d 198, 201 (9th Cir. 1988). “To determine these factors,

the court looks to the way the state treats the entity.” Id. Further, “the source from which

the sums sought by the plaintiff must come is the most important single factor in

determining whether the Eleventh Amendment bars federal jurisdiction.” Rutledge v.

Arizona Board of Regents, 660 F.2d 1345, 1349 (9th Cir. 1981), aff’d. sub nom. Kush v.

Rutledge, 460 U.S. 719 (1983). 

The Arizona Board of Regents is treated as the State of Arizona under Arizona

law. See Arizona Board of Regents v. Arizona York Refrigeration Co., 115 Ariz. 338,

565 P.2d 518 (1977). Its funds are state funds. Id. Further, analysis of the statutory

scheme governing ABOR weighs in favor of a finding of Eleventh Amendment

immunity. ABOR consists of ten members appointed by the governor, and the governor

and state superintendent of public instruction serve as ex officio members. A.R.S. § 15-

1621. The powers and duties of ABOR are regulated by the state legislature. A.R.S. §

15-1625. In addition, ABOR is required to submit an annual report to the governor after

the close of each fiscal year. A.R.S. § 15-1629. As such, the Court finds that ABOR is

an arm of the State of Arizona; and is not considered a “person” under § 1983 for claims

that seek monetary damages.

Additionally, to the extent that Plaintiff’s third claim for relief seeks prospective

injunctive relief from ABOR, Eleventh Amendment immunity still applies to bar

Plaintiff’s claim. Ex Parte Young and its progeny clearly establish that plaintiffs are

permitted to sue state officials acting in their official capacity. Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S.

123 (1908); see also Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 167 n. 14 (1985); Rounds v. Or.

State Bd. Of Higher Educ., 166 F.3d 1032, 1036 (9th Cir. 1999); cf. Alabama v. Pugh,

438 U.S. 781, 782 (1978) (noting that the State and its agencies were immune from suit

under § 1983 where prospective injunctive relief was the remedy). Thus, ABOR, as

opposed to individual members of the Board of Regents, is not a state official. The Ex

Parte Young exception does not apply in the instant case. 

Case 2:08-cv-01684-MHM Document 11 Filed 10/22/08 Page 3 of 4
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

- 4 -

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Third Claim for

Relief is GRANTED. (Dkt. #2).

DATED this 20th day of October, 2008.

Case 2:08-cv-01684-MHM Document 11 Filed 10/22/08 Page 4 of 4