Aiken v. Nixon

Second Circuit

Aiken v. Nixon

80 F. App'x 146

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedNovember 10, 2003

DocketNo. 02-9288

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 80 F. App'x 146 (Aiken v. Nixon) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Aiken v. Nixon, 80 F. App'x 146 (2d Cir. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court is hereby AFFIRMED.

Defendants appeal from an Opinion and Order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (Thomas J. McAvoy, Judge) denying defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ claims for injunctive relief as barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Substantially for the reasons stated in the District Court’s opinion, we agree with the District Court that, under the doctrine of Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 28 S.Ct. 441, 52 L.Ed. 714 (1908), plaintiffs’ claims are not barred by the Eleventh Amendment, because the complaint alleges an ongoing violation of federal law and seeks prospective relief.

We have considered all of defendants’ claims on appeal and we hereby AFFIRM the judgment of the District Court.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SUMMARY ORDER

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court is hereby AFFIRMED.

Defendants appeal from an Opinion and Order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (Thomas J. McAvoy, Judge) denying defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ claims for injunctive relief as barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Substantially for the reasons stated in the District Court’s opinion, we agree with the District Court that, under the doctrine of Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 28 S.Ct. 441, 52 L.Ed. 714 (1908), plaintiffs’ claims are not barred by the Eleventh Amendment, because the complaint alleges an ongoing violation of federal law and seeks prospective relief.

We have considered all of defendants’ claims on appeal and we hereby AFFIRM the judgment of the District Court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

80 F. App'x 146, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/aiken-v-nixon-ca2-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack