Bright v. State of Oregon

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: December 9, 2025
• Docket: 24-5463
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 9 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

VICTORIA BRIGHT, an individual, No. 24-5463 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellant, 3:23-cv-00320-MO v. MEMORANDUM* STATE OF OREGON; OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES; BERRI LESLIE, in her official capacity as Director of the Oregon Department of Administrative Services,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Michael W. Mosman, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 19, 2025** Seattle, Washington

Before: McKEOWN, W. FLETCHER, and DESAI, Circuit Judges.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Victoria Bright (“Bright”) brings First and Fourteenth Amendment claims

based on a payroll processing error that caused the Oregon Department of

Administrative Services (“DAS”) to deduct union dues from her wages without

authorization. She sues the State of Oregon (“Oregon”), DAS, and Berri Leslie

(“Leslie”) in her official capacity as DAS director (collectively, “State

Defendants”). The district court granted summary judgment to the State

Defendants. Bright challenges the district court’s determinations that her claim for

relief from future deductions is moot and that any remaining claims fail on the

merits. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the

district court’s grant of summary judgment, Duarte v. City of Stockton, 60 F.4th

566, 570 (9th Cir. 2023), and we affirm.

The Eleventh Amendment bars Bright’s claims against Oregon and DAS.

That provision renders nonconsenting states, like Oregon, and state agencies, like

DAS, immune from suit. Kohn v. State Bar of Cal., 87 F.4th 1021, 1025–26 (9th

Cir. 2023) (en banc). It applies regardless of “the relief sought,” meaning Bright

cannot sue Oregon or DAS for either damages or injunctive relief. Seminole Tribe

of Fla. v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44, 58, 54 (1996) (noting the Eleventh Amendment

applies to “any suit in law or equity”) (quoting U.S. Const. amend. XI).

The Ex parte Young exception to Eleventh Amendment immunity permits

Bright to seek prospective relief against Leslie. See 209 U.S. 123, 159–60 (1908);

2 24-5463 R. W. v. Columbia Basin Coll., 77 F.4th 1214, 1220 (9th Cir. 2023). But the district

court correctly determined that Bright’s claim for prospective relief from future

wage deductions is moot. A case becomes moot—and thus lacks “a Case or

Controversy for purposes of Article III—when the issues presented are no longer

live.” Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc., 568 U.S. 85, 91 (2013) (quoting Murphy v. Hunt,

455 U.S. 478, 481 (1982) (per curiam)) (internal quotation marks omitted). That

includes circumstances when a defendant shows “that it is absolutely clear the

allegedly wrongful behavior c[annot] reasonably be expected to recur.” Friends of

the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Env’t Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 190 (2000).

Here, Oregon carried its burden of demonstrating that future wage

deductions will not recur. By law, Oregon may only deduct union dues from public

employees who provide written authorization. Or. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 243.806(1). A

problem occurred because Oregon’s payroll software failed to process Bright’s

removal from a list of employees who had provided authorization. The undisputed

evidence reveals, however, that Oregon resolved that error and has taken measures

to prevent similar errors from happening again. And Bright offers no evidence that

Oregon will not implement the law “in good faith.” Am. Cargo Transp., Inc. v.

United States, 625 F.3d 1176, 1180 (9th Cir. 2010). Bright’s claim for relief from

future deductions is moot.

3 24-5463 Bright’s remaining claim against Leslie for nominal damages fails because it

is “retrospective,” not “prospective.” See Cardenas v. Anzai, 311 F.3d 929, 935

(9th Cir. 2002) (noting retrospective relief is “impermissible” under Ex parte

Young). Bright expressly seeks nominal damages to redress a completed violation

of her constitutional rights. In that context, “one dollar in nominal damages” is

functionally equivalent to “one dollar in compensation,” Uzuegbunam v.

Preczewski, 592 U.S. 279, 292 (2021)—meaning Bright’s nominal damages claim

is, “in essence,” a claim for retrospective relief to which the Eleventh Amendment

applies. See Lund v. Cowan, 5 F.4th 964, 970 (9th Cir. 2021); see also Platt v.

Moore, 15 F.4th 895, 910 (9th Cir. 2021) (noting that, absent waiver, “state

sovereign immunity” would bar a claim for “nominal damages” that was

retrospective in nature).

AFFIRMED.

4 24-5463