UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF OREGON 

LARRY PRESSNALL, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

STATE OF OREGON; OREGON STATE 

HOSPITAL; OREGON HEALTH 

AUTHORITY; DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN 

SERVICES; GREG ROBERTS, an individual; 

LUZ BARELA-BORST, an individual, 

Defendants. 

AIKEN, Judge: 

Case No. 6:15-cv-01642-AA 

OPINION AND ORDER 

Plaintiff filed suit alleging wage and hour violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act 

(FLSA), discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and 

related state law claims. Defendants move to dismiss all claims, except plaintiffs Title VII 

claim, on grounds of Eleventh Amendment immunity. The motion is granted. 

DISCUSSION 

Defendants argue that the Eleventh Amendment bars plaintiff from bringing his FLSA 

and state law claims in federal comi. Defendants also argue that plaintiffs claims against the 

individual defendants must be dismissed for lack of service. 

1 - OPINION AND ORDER 
The Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits a plaintiff from 

suing the State of Oregon or its instrumentalities in federal comi, unless the State has given 

unequivocal consent to be sued or Congress has abrogated that immunity. Raygor v. Regents of 

Univ. ofiVfinn., 534 U.S. 533, 540-542 (2002); Will v. Mich. Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 

66 (1989); Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 97-100 (1984). Similarly, 

the Eleventh Amendment bars claims for damages against state officials sued in their official 

capacities. See Holley v. Cal. Dep't of Corr., 599 F.3d 1108, 1111 (9th Cir. 2010) (for immunity 

purposes, suits against state officials in their official capacities are treated as suits against the 

state); Franceschi v. Schwartz, 57 F.3d 828, 831 (9th Cir. 1995) ("The Eleventh Amendment 

bars suits which seek either damages or injunctive relief against a state, an 'arm of the state,' its 

instrumentalities, or its agencies.") (per curiam). 

Plaintiff concedes that his FLSA claim is baned by the Eleventh Amendment. Quillin v. 

State, 127 F.3d 1136, 1139 (9th Cir. 1997) ("Federal courts lack jurisdiction over FLSA cases 

brought against States in the absence of a waiver of immunity.") (per curiam). However, plaintiff 

is "unable to consent to dismissal of the remaining claims." Pl.'s Response at 1-2. Notably, 

plaintiff fails to explain why the Eleventh Amendment does not prohibit his state law claims 

against the State and its agencies from being brought in federal court. Rather, plaintiff asks that 

the court deny defendants' motion to dismiss his claims against the individual defendants for 

lack of service and requests that the cmui extend the time in which plaintiff may serve these 

defendants. Pl. 's Suppl. Response at 1-2; Pl.'s Motion to Extend Deadline. 

The Eleventh Amendment bar, rather than the lack of service, is the threshold issue 

before the comi, and plaintiff fails to explain why his state law claims against the individual 

defendants should be allowed to proceed. In his complaint, plaintiff alleges that defendants 

2 - OPINION AND ORDER 
Roberts and Barela-Borst "aided and abetted" the State agencies' discriminatory treatment of 

him. However, plaintiff does not allege any action taken by Robe1is or Barela-Borst outside of 

their official capacities. Comp!. at 7, 8, 18. Accordingly, plaintiffs claims against the individual 

defendants are claims brought against the State and likewise are batl'ed by the Eleventh 

Amendment. Will, 491 U.S. at 71 ("[A] suit against a state official in his or her official capacity 

is not a suit against the official but rather is a suit against the official's office. As such, it is no 

different from a suit against the State itself.") (citation omitted); see also Or. Rev. Stat. § 30.265. 

Regardless, the comt would decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state 

law claims against the individual defendants, given the dismissal of plaintiffs state law claims 

against the State defendants. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) (the court may decline supplemental 

jurisdiction for compelling reasons). 

CONCLUSION 

Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (doc. 18) is GRANTED. Except for plaintiffs Title VII 

claim against his employer, Oregon State Hospital, plaintiffs claims are DISMISSED without 

prejudice. Plaintiffs Motion to Extend Deadline (doc. 26) is DENIED as moot. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

V> 

Dated thisJ,2': day of February, 2016. 

Ann Aiken 

United States District Judge 

3 - OPINION AND ORDER