FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTH CI RCUI T APRI L 1, 2009 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [ D O N O T P U B L I S H ]

I N T H E U N I T E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C I R C U I T

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ N o

. 0 8

- 1 4 0 9 5 N o n
- A r g u m e n t C a l e n d a r

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ D

. C

. D o c k e t N o

. 0 8

- 0 0 1 7 3

- C V

- W S

- C

L I N D A C O N E S E L E N S K Y ,

P l a i n t i f f

- A p p e l l a n t ,

v e r s u s

S T A T E O F A L A B A M A ,
D e f e n d a n t

- A p p e l l e e

.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ A p p e a l f r o m t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r t h e S o u t h e r n D i s t r i c t o f A l a b a m a

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ( A p r i l 1 , 2 0 0 9 )

B e f o r e T J O F L A T , D U B I N A a n d K R A V I T C H , C i r c u i t J u d g e s

.
P E R C U R I A M :

L i n d a C o n e S e l e n s k y a p p e a l s t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ’ s o r d e r d i s m i s s i n g h e r p r o s ec o m p l a i n t f o r l a c k o f s u b

j e c t m a t t e r j u r i s d i c t i o n , a n d , a l t e r n a t i v e l y , a s f r i v o l o u s

u n d e r 2 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 9 1 5 ( e ) ( 2 ) ( B ) ( i )

. B e c a u s e w e f i n d t h a t S e l e n s k y ’ s c l a i m s a r e
b a r r e d b y t h e E l e v e n t h A m e n d m e n t o f t h e U

. S

. C o n s t i t u t i o n , w e a f f i r m

. 1

S e l e n s k y ’ s p r e s e n t s u i t n a m e s t h e S t a t e o f A l a b a m a a s t h e s o l e d e f e n d a n t

.
T h e E l e v e n t h A m e n d m e n t p r o h i b i t s s u i t s i n f e d e r a l c o u r t s a g a i n s t a s t a t e , e x c e p t

w h e r e s u c h i m m u n i t y i s w a i v e d b y t h e s t a t e o r a b r o g a t e d b y C o n g r e s s

. U

. S

.
C O N S T

. a m e n d

. X I ; s e e M a n d e r s v
. L e e , 3 3 8 F

. 3 d 1 3 0 4 , 1 3 0 8 ( 1 1 t h C i r

. 2 0 0 3 )

.
T h e S t a t e o f A l a b a m a h a s n o t a g r e e d t o b e s u e d u n d e r t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s p r e s e n t

h e r e

. T h e A l a b a m a S t a t e C o n s t i t u t i o n p r o v i d e s “ [ t ] h a t t h e S t a t e o f A l a b a m a s h a l l

n e v e r b e m a d e a d e f

e n d a n t i n a n y c o u r t o f l a w o r e q u i t y
. ” A LA

. C O N S T

. A r t

. I , § 1 4 ; s e e a l s o A l a b a m a v
. P u g h , 4 3 9 U

. S

. 7 8 1 , 7 8 2 ( 1 9 7 8 )

. S e l e n s k y h a s p r e s e n t e d

n o e v i d e n c e t h a t C o n g r e s s a b r o g a t e d A l a b a m a ’ s E l e v e n t h A m e n d m e n t i m m u n i t y

o v e r h e r p r e s e n t c l a i m s

. A c c o r d i n g l y , w e A F F I R M t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ’ s d i s m i s s a l

o f t h i s a c t i o n

.

We may aff irm the district court’s judg ment on any g round that appe ars in the r ecor d, 1 see Thoma s v. Cooper L ighting , I nc., 506 F .3d 1361, 1364 (11th Cir. 2007); we note, how ever , that the mag istrate judg e re commended dismissal for the rea sons later a dopted by the district court a s well as on g rounds of Eleve nth Amendment immunity

. 2