Opinion ID: 211124
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Abrogation of State Immunity

Text: The Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution limits the judicial authority of the federal courts and prevents citizens from bringing suit against a state in 05-1440 4 a federal court without its consent. Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. 261, 267-68 (1997); see also Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1, 17 (1890). While Congress may abrogate, under certain circumstances, a state’s Eleventh Amendment immunity under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, see Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509, 518 (2004), it may not do so under its Article I Commerce Clause power in patent cases, see Fla. Prepaid Postsecondary Educ. Expense Bd. v. Coll. Sav. Bank, 527 U.S. 627, 647-48 (1999). In Florida Prepaid, the Supreme Court held that Congress did not have the authority under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution to abrogate state sovereign immunity. The amendment to the Patent Act that abrogated state sovereign immunity, 35 U.S.C. §§ 271(h), 296(a) (“Act”), did not reflect any Congressional findings upon which Congress could base the abrogation of the Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity of the states pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment. The Act merely served as a uniform remedy for patent holders against states instead of a remedy for constitutional violations, such as where a state provides inadequate or no state court remedies. Fla. Prepaid, 527 U.S. at 646-47. The infringement of a patent by a state may be actionable in federal courts “only where the State provides no remedy, or only inadequate remedies, to injured patent owners for its infringement of their patent.” Id. at 643. The Act’s legislative history in Florida Prepaid, however, provided no factual premise that Congress was attempting to remedy Fourteenth Amendment violations. Id. at 642. The Court noted that the State of Florida provided various alternative remedies to recover for patent infringement, such as a legislative remedy through a claim for payment or a judicial remedy through a takings or conversion claim against the state. 05-1440 5 Id. at 644 n.9. Congress’s failure to consider these available state remedies and their constitutional adequacy provided inadequate support for Congressional abrogation of the state’s Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court has reasoned that Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment is designed to remedy existing and widespread conditions of unconstitutional behavior by the states and cannot be used to prevent perceived abuses, absent particularized findings of state violations of constitutionally protected rights. Id. at 637-41; see also Kimel v. Fla. Bd. of Regents, 528 U.S. 62, 81 (2000) (rejecting the Age Discrimination in Employment Act’s grant of jurisdiction because Congress lacked the authority under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to abrogate state sovereign immunity where the remedy failed the proportionality and congruence test of City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507, 520 (1997)). Pennington submits that the University and the University Officials are subject to suit under the Eleventh Amendment because “the State of Arkansas provides no adequate remedies to patent infringement.” Pennington relies on our decision in Xechem that it purports to be a “template” for our court to abrogate state immunity for patent infringement under the Fourteenth Amendment.2 2 Pennington argues that it was error to dismiss the complaint against the University before considering its First Amended Complaint that added an additional count for deprivation of federal patent rights. In Pure Country, Inc. v. Sigma Chi Fraternity, the Eighth Circuit held that it was plainly erroneous for the district court to ignore a motion to amend when it grants a motion to dismiss, then moot the motion to amend citing its own grant of the motion to dismiss. 312 F.3d 952, 956 (8th Cir. 2002). The Pure Country court did not establish a rule that amended complaints would necessarily moot previous motions to dismiss. Regardless, in this case the district court did reconsider the motion to dismiss, found that it was not moot and reaffirmed its decision to dismiss on Eleventh Amendment grounds. A motion for reconsideration is a procedural issue we review under Eighth Circuit law, see Bowling v. Hasbro, Inc., 403 05-1440 6 In Xechem, we noted that Florida Prepaid requires a showing “that the state action ‘left [the patentee] without a remedy under state law,’” 382 F.3d at 1332; however, such a showing is predicated upon Congress’s abrogation of Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity. As specifically explained in Florida Prepaid, it is the Congress, not this court, that can abrogate Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity for patent infringement, pursuant to Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, if there is a showing that state remedies were insufficient and violated due process. 527 U.S. at 642-43, 646-47; see also Chew v. Cal., 893 F.2d 331, 336 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Here, Pennington alleged in its complaint that the Arkansas Claims Commission is the only body allowed to hear claims against the state, but that it could not issue injunctions, conduct discovery, or issue a monetary award over $10,000. Pennington, however, fails to allege or explain how Congress made the specific finding that these state procedures are so inadequate that it abrogated state sovereign immunity to allow a patent infringement claim to be filed in federal court. Without such a finding, abrogation would be suspect under Florida Prepaid. Although the district court found that there was no state forum in which to contest patent infringement claims, it did not find that other available remedies pursuant to state law were so insufficient that they violated the Fourteenth Amendment. In fact, Pennington’s First Amended Complaint inherently recognizes the sufficient state remedies acknowledged in Florida Prepaid. Namely, the complaint notes that the State F.3d 1373, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2005), for an abuse of discretion, see Brooks v. FergusonFlorissant Sch. Dist., 113 F.3d 903, 904-05 (8th Cir. 1997). Under the circumstances, the district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the motion for reconsideration. 05-1440 7 legislature may consider claims and appropriate monetary awards greater than $10,000 (a legislative remedy), and it alleges that the state remedy for conversion (a judicial remedy) may be available. See Fla. Prepaid, 527 U.S. at 644 n.9. Moreover, Arkansas law allows other forms of relief aside from the Claims Commission. See, e.g., Austin v. Ark. State Highway Comm’n, 895 S.W.2d 941, 943 (Ark. 1995) (“[L]andowner, claiming a taking of property, may either seek prospective injunctive relief in chancery court or damages from the State Claims Commission.”); Cammack v. Chalmers, 680 S.W.2d 689 (Ark. 1984) (allowing injunctive relief for State acts that are illegal, unconstitutional or ultra vires). While these remedies may be “uncertain” or “less convenient,” or may “undermine the uniformity of patent law,” these attributes are not sufficient to show that the patentee’s due process rights have been violated. Florida Prepaid, 527 U.S. at 64445; see also Xechem, 382 F.3d at 1332; Jacobs Wind Elec. Co. v. Fla. Dep’t of Transp., 919 F.2d 726, 728 (Fed. Cir. 1990). 2. Ex parte Young Action Against the University Officials Next, Pennington argues that the district court improperly dismissed its claims against George, Sugg, and White, which had been alleged on the basis of the Ex parte Young doctrine.3 In Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908), railway stockholders filed suit against the Minnesota State Attorney General complaining that a state statute establishing railway rates was unconstitutional. Id. at 127-29. After the district court preliminarily enjoined the enforcement of the statute, the Attorney General violated the injunction, and the court found him in contempt. Id. at 132-34. The Attorney General 3 Pennington does not address the trial court’s dismissal of any § 1983 claims due to the suit being brought against the University Officials in their official capacity. As such, we will consider any such claim waived. 05-1440 8 appealed under a writ of habeas corpus arguing that a federal court could not enjoin a state official from enforcing the laws of a state due to the sovereign immunity granted to such official derived under the Eleventh Amendment. Id. at 134-36. The Supreme Court held that if a state official was seeking to enforce an unconstitutional act, he came into conflict with the supreme authority of the Constitution and was thereby stripped of his official capacity; consequently, the state’s mantle of sovereign immunity would not be available to insulate his actions. Id. at 159-60; accord Green v. Mansour, 474 U.S. 64, 68 (1985). The Supreme Court has also noted that “[t]o ensure the enforcement of federal law, however, the Eleventh Amendment permits suits for prospective injunctive relief against state officials acting in violation of federal law.” Frew v. Hawkins, 540 U.S. 431, 437 (2004); accord Green, 474 U.S. at 68; Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 102-03 (1984); Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. at 155-56, 159. But, these remedies for violations of federal law can only be extended to future injunctive relief, not “retroactive monetary relief.” Pennhurst, 465 U.S. at 102-03. To analyze an Ex parte Young claim, “a court need only conduct a ‘straightforward inquiry into whether [the] complaint alleges an ongoing violation of federal law and seeks relief properly characterized as prospective.’” Verizon Md., Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n of Md., 535 U.S. 635, 645 (2002) (citing Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. at 296). Thus, continuing prospective violations of a federal patent right by state officials may be enjoined by federal courts under the Ex parte Young doctrine; however, the Eleventh Amendment precludes the plaintiff from obtaining monetary damages from individual defendants in their official capacities. See Graham, 473 U.S. at 169 (“The 05-1440 9 Eleventh Amendment bars a damage action against a State in federal court. . . . This bar remains in effect when state officials are sued for damages in their official capacity.”). Moreover, this procedure cannot be applied to an action against any random state official. As noted in Ex parte Young, there must be a connection between the state officer and the enforcement of the act or else the suit will merely make him a representative of the state and therefore improperly make the state a party to the suit. 209 U.S. at 157. A nexus between the violation of federal law and the individual accused of violating that law requires more than simply a broad general obligation to prevent a violation. See Shell Oil Co. v. Noel, 608 F.2d 208, 211 (1st Cir. 1979) (holding the governor or attorney general of a state are not the proper defendants in every action attacking the constitutionality of a state statute merely because they have a general obligation to enforce state laws). When a violation of federal law is alleged, as here, the state official whose actions violate that law is the rightful party to the suit and prospective injunctive relief can only be had against him. See, e.g., Dairy Mart Convenience Stores, Inc. v. Nickel (In re Dairy Mart Convenience Stores, Inc.), 411 F.3d 367, 373 (2d Cir. 2005) (State officials were subject to injunction where they refused to give effect to federal bankruptcy law that extended time deadlines for filing a reimbursement claim. A sufficient nexus was established because the state officers oversaw the fund and distribution of claims.). Here, the district court found that Pennington failed to allege any causal connection between George, Sugg, or White and the alleged patent infringement. In the First Amended Complaint, Pennington made allegations that the University Officials were engaged in marketing the patented product. Pennington, however, failed to 05-1440 10 sufficiently allege how George, White and Sugg were causally connected to the infringement. Instead, Pennington asserted in its opposition to the motion to dismiss that George, White and Sugg were liable for infringement because, due to their positions at the University, they supervised intellectual property activity. It supported this conclusion through documents and argument included in its opposition brief.4 Pennington purports that it developed a sufficient nexus by demonstrating the causal connection between the University Officials who were responsible for overseeing the University’s patent policy and the patent infringement. Basically, it was alleged that “[s]imply put, all three Defendants have the ability to ‘stop an ongoing violation of federal law.’” Plaintiff’s Suggestions in Opposition to University Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss at 7. Allegations that a state official directs a University’s patent policy are insufficient to causally connect that state official to a violation of federal patent law—i.e., patent infringement. A nexus between the violation of federal law and the individual accused 4 The district court refused to recognize the unsupported assertions of counsel and dismissed the actions against George, Sugg, and White. Under Rule 10(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, materials attached to a complaint may be considered as exhibits that are part of the complaint for determining the sufficiency of the pleadings. See Meehan v. United Consumers Club Franchising Corp., 312 F.3d 909, 913 (8th Cir. 2002). However, a court is “under no obligation to resolve the issues in the complaint through materials outside the pleadings.” Id.; see also Palda v. Gen. Dynamics Corp., 47 F.3d 872, 875 (7th Cir. 1995) (holding that court would not look beyond the four corners of the complaint to cure defective pleadings). Because, at least as far as George, White and Sugg were concerned, Pennington’s First Amended Complaint was inherently defective, the district court properly granted the motion to dismiss. 05-1440 11 of violating that law requires more than simply a broad general obligation to prevent a violation; it requires an actual violation of federal law by that individual. See Frew, 540 U.S. at 437 (holding that the Ex parte Young doctrine applies when state officials act in violation of state law); see also Shell Oil Co., 608 F.2d at 211 (holding that a general obligation to enforce state laws is not a sufficient nexus). The fact that a University Official has a general, state-law obligation to oversee a University’s patent policy does not give rise to a violation of federal patent law.5 Essentially, Pennington asks the federal courts to enjoin the University Officials from neglecting their job duties established by state law. But, a federal court cannot enjoin a state official to perform his or her duty under state law. Pennhurst, 465 U.S. at 106. As the Supreme Court has explained, [a] federal court’s grant of relief against state officials on the basis of state law, whether prospective or retroactive, does not vindicate the supreme authority of federal law. On the contrary, it is difficult to think of a greater intrusion on state sovereignty than when a federal court instructs state officials on how to conform their conduct to state law. Such a result conflicts directly with the principles of federalism that underlie the Eleventh Amendment. We conclude that Young and Edelman are inapplicable in a suit against state officials on the basis of state law. Id. A federal court may only enjoin ongoing activity that violates federal law. To hold otherwise would not only violate the principles of federalism and a state’s sovereign immunity, but it would also be akin to a suit against the state itself. Thus, Pennington’s 5 This is to be distinguished from the factual situation where a state official’s refusal to perform a duty is itself a violation of federal law. See, e.g., Dairy Mart, 411 F.3d at 373 (state officials refusal to process a claim was itself a violation of established federal bankruptcy procedure). Here, allegations that University Officials failed to supervise intellectual property policy at the school is not an allegation of federal patent infringement and does not retain a sufficient causal connection to the activity. 05-1440 12 claims against George, White and Sugg were properly dismissed.