Graven v. Arizona, State of

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: January 13, 2020
• Docket: 2:19-cv-04586
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8

William A. Graven, ) No. CV-19-04586-PHX-SPL ) 9 ) 10 Plaintiff, ) ORDER vs. ) ) 11 ) State of Arizona, ) 12 ) 13 Defendant. ) ) 14 )

15 Pending before the Court is Defendant State of Arizona’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 16 11). For the following reasons, the motion will be granted. 17 I. Background 18 Plaintiff brought this cause of action against the State of Arizona for monetary 19 damages based on the failure to indict Snell & Wilmer, a local law firm, and some of its 20 partners for alleged criminal acts. 21 II. Legal Standard 22 Defendant has moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint pursuant to 23 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Defendant argues the First 24 Amended Complaint is barred by the Eleventh Amendment, res judicata, Arizona’s Notice 25 of Claim Statute, and the applicable statute of limitations. Defendant further argues that 26 Plaintiff lacks standing and fails to state a valid claim for relief. 27 “If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the 28 court must dismiss the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3); Augustine v. United States, 704 1 F.2d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 1983) (“The defense of lack of subject matter jurisdiction cannot 2 be waived, and the court is under a continuing duty to dismiss an action whenever it appears 3 that the court lacks jurisdiction.”). 4 A Rule 12(b)(1) jurisdictional attack may be facial or factual. In a facial attack, the challenger asserts that the allegations 5 contained in the complaint are insufficient on their face to invoke federal jurisdiction. By contrast, in a factual attack, the 6 challenger disputes the truth of the allegations that, by themselves, would otherwise invoke federal jurisdiction. 7 8 Safe Air for Everyone v. Meyer, 373 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2004). A jurisdictional 9 challenge based on Eleventh Amendment immunity is properly raised in a 12(b)(1) motion 10 to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See In re Jackson, 184 F.3d 1046, 1048 11 (9th Cir. 1999) (“Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity limits the jurisdiction of the 12 federal courts and can be raised by a party at any time during judicial proceedings or by 13 the court sua sponte.”); see also Halstead v. Motorcycle Safety Found., Inc., 71 F.Supp.2d 14 464, 468 n.1 (E.D. Penn. 1999) (“The Eleventh Amendment is a jurisdictional bar which 15 deprives federal courts of subject matter jurisdiction and therefore a motion raising 16 Eleventh Amendment immunity may properly be considered a motion to dismiss the 17 complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1).”). In 18 resolving such a facial attack, the Court accepts the well-pleaded factual allegations as true 19 and construes them in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. DaVinci Aircraft, 20 Inc. v. United States, 926 F.3d 1117, 1122 (9th Cir. 2019). 21 III. Eleventh Amendment 22 The Eleventh Amendment states that “[t]he judicial power of the United States shall 23 not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against 24 one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any 25 Foreign State.” U.S. Const., Amend. XI. Accordingly, absent waiver, consent, or an 26 express abrogation of sovereign immunity by Congress, a state is immune from federal 27 court suits brought by their own citizens or those of another state. Lindsey v. Matayoshi, 28 950 F.Supp.2d 1159, 1165 (D. Haw. 2013). Here, because Plaintiff brings a claim for 1 | monetary damages against the State itself, and because Plaintiff has failed to argue that the 2| claims fall within any legitimate exception, the Court finds that Plaintiffs entire First 3 | Amended Complaint is barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Plaintiff has not provided the 4) Court with any basis to find otherwise.! See Comm. to Protect our Agric. Water v. 5| Occidental Oil & Gas Co., 235 F.Supp.3d 1132, 1161 (E.D. Cal. 2017) (“An entity invoking Eleventh Amendment immunity generally bears the burden of asserting and 7 | ultimately proving those matters necessary to establish its defense. However, once a 8 | defendant meets this burden, the burden shifts to plaintiff to demonstrate that an exception 9| to Eleventh Amendment immunity applies.” (internal citations omitted)). 10 Accordingly, 11 IT IS ORDERED that Defendant State of Arizona’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 11) is granted and this action is dismissed in its entirety. 13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall terminate this action and enter judgment accordingly. 15 Dated this 13th day of January, 2020. 16 17 18 iG 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

28 ' Because the Court finds that the claims are barred by the Eleventh Amendment, the Court declines to address the remaining arguments in Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss.