James of the Family McDonald v. State of Washington

• Court: District Court, E.D. Washington
• Decided: November 14, 2023
• Docket: 2:23-cv-00282
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 FILED IN THE 2 U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 3 Nov 14, 2023 4 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 9 10 ROBERT JAMES McDONALD, 11 Plaintiff, No. 2:23-CV-00282-SAB 12 v. 13 THE STATE OF WASHINGTON and ORDER DENYING MOTION 14 THE COURT OF CHELAN COUNTY, FOR PERMANENT 15 Defendants. INJUNCTION AND 16 DISMISSING CASE 17 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Emergency Request for Permanent Mandatory 18 Injunction, ECF No. 2. Plaintiff is pro se. Defendants have not yet appeared. The 19 motion was heard without oral argument. Upon review of the motion, relevant case 20 law, and the record, the Court denies Plaintiff’s request and dismisses this matter. 21 District courts have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the 22 Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. District 23 courts also have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in 24 controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, 25 and is between citizens of different states, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). 26 In general, states have broad sovereign immunity from suit. “The Judicial 27 power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or 28 equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of 1 another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.” U.S. Const. art. XI. 2 “It is inherent in the nature of sovereignty not to be amendable to the suit of an 3 individual without [a State’s] consent. Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1, 13 (1890). 4 Furthermore, a lawsuit seeking an injunction against a state official does not 5 violate sovereign immunity principles stemming from the Eleventh Amendment of 6 the U.S. Constitution, because the state official was not acting on behalf of the 7 state when enforcing an unconstitutional law. See Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 8 (1908). “[J]urisdictional dismissals in cases premised on federal-question 9 jurisdiction are exceptional” and are permitted only when the claim is “patently 10 without merit.” Roberts v. Corrothers, 812 F.2d 1173, 1177 (9th Cir. 1987). 11 Defendant’s complaint and request for permanent injunction are hard to 12 follow. What is clear, is that the Court does not have jurisdiction over this matter. 13 On Plaintiff’s emergency request, Plaintiff appears to be a resident of the State of 14 Washington in Chelan County and claims this Court has diversity jurisdiction. ECF 15 No. 4 at 1 and 3. Defendants are entities of the State of Washington. 16 The claims against the State of Washington are barred by the Eleventh 17 Amendment. Plaintiff sometimes references federal questions in their Complaint 18 and Request for Permanent Injunction but does not reference consistent federal 19 causes of action within the same filing or between filings. ECF Nos. 1 and 2. 20 Regardless, Defendant has failed to survive an analysis under Roberts. Plaintiff’s 21 complaint and subsequent request for mandatory injunction are patently without 22 merit. The claims against Chelan County and the State of Washington are 23 dismissed. 24 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 25 1. Plaintiff’s Emergency Request for Permanent Mandatory Injunction, 26 ECF No. 2, is DENIED. 27 2. The above-captioned action is DISMISSED without prejudice. 28 3. Any pending motions are DISMISSED as moot. 1 4. All relief not expressly granted herein is hereby denied. IT ISSO ORDERED. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter this Order, 3|| forward copies to pro se Plaintiff, and close the file. DATED this 14th day of November 2023. 5

by Ecsta 10 Stanley A. Bastian Chief United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND HNISMISSING CASE #2