King v. Iberville Parish

• Court: District Court, M.D. Louisiana
• Decided: April 25, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-00402
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON Apr 25, 2025 2 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 7 DAVID LEE ROY KING, No. 1:24-CV-3180-MKD 8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 9 v. DISMISS

10 STATE OF LOUISIANA, LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF 11 LICENSING, AND IBERVILLE PARISH, 12 Defendants. ECF Nos. 40, 44 13 14 15 Before the Court is the State of Louisiana and the Louisiana Department of 16 Licensing’s (the Louisiana Defendants) Motion to Dismiss. ECF No. 40. Plaintiff 17 is proceeding pro se. Phyllis Glazer and Erica Roberts represent the Louisiana 18 Defendants. The Court has reviewed the record and is fully informed. For the 19 reasons set forth below, the Court grants the motion. 20 1 BACKGROUND 2 The following facts are alleged in Plaintiff’s Complaint and the affidavit

3 attached thereto. ECF No. 1; ECF No. 1-2. On August 15, 2023, Iberville Parish 4 issued a traffic citation to Plaintiff. ECF No. 1-2 at 2. Plaintiff paid the traffic 5 citation on April 1, 2024. Id. On April 10, 2024, Plaintiff received an unspecified

6 letter from the Washington Department of Licensing. Id. On May 6, 2024, the 7 Washington Department of Licensing suspended Plaintiff’s driver’s license. Id. In 8 July 2024, Plaintiff applied for employment with Uber, which conducted a 9 background check. Id. at 3. Uber “denied” employment based on a “failed

10 background check,” which indicated Plaintiff’s driver’s license had been 11 suspended. Id. 12 Plaintiff filed the Complaint on November 5, 2024, alleging, as relevant

13 here, that all Defendants conspired to deprive Plaintiff of his right to travel and be 14 employed by unlawfully suspending his driver’s license and that the Washington 15 Defendants failed to communicate with the State of Louisiana, the Louisiana 16 Department of Licensing, and Iberville Parish. ECF No. 1 at 4-6.

17 LEGAL STANDARD 18 “To survive a [Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)] motion to dismiss, a complaint must 19 contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is

20 plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell 1 Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “Threadbare recitals of the 2 elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not

3 suffice.” Id. In considering a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the 4 Court must accept as true the well-pleaded factual allegations and any reasonable 5 inference to be drawn from them, but legal conclusions are not entitled to the same

6 assumption of truth. Id. A complaint must contain either direct or inferential 7 allegations respecting all the material elements necessary to sustain recovery under 8 some viable legal theory. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 562. “Factual allegations must be 9 enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Id. at 555. Because

10 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court liberally construes his pleadings. Capp v. 11 Cnty. of San Diego, 940 F.3d 1046, 1052 (9th Cir. 2019). 12 DISCUSSION

13 The Louisiana Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint under Fed. 14 R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), contending the Eleventh Amendment precludes Plaintiff’s 15 claims against them. ECF No. 40. 16 Plaintiff appears to assert claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See ECF No.

17 1 at 4-6. However, states and state agencies are not “persons” subject to suit under 18 Section 1983. See Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989) 19 (“We hold that neither a State nor its officials acting in their official capacities are

20 ‘persons’ under § 1983.”). Thus, to the extent Plaintiff asserts claims arising under 1 Section 1983, they are precluded by the Eleventh Amendment.1 The Court 2 therefore dismisses Plaintiff’s claims against the Louisiana Defendants, without

3 prejudice. See Freeman v. Oakland Unified Sch. Dist., 179 F.3d 846, 847 (9th Cir. 4 1999) (holding that dismissals under the Eleventh Amendment should be without 5 prejudice so that the plaintiff “may reassert his claims in a competent court”). The

6 Court further denies leave to amend because no amendment can overcome 7 Eleventh Amendment immunity. See Lucas v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr., 66 F.3d 245, 8 248 (9th Cir. 1995) (holding that when a court dismisses a pro se plaintiff’s 9 complaint, it must give the plaintiff leave to amend “[u]nless it is absolutely clear

10 that no amendment can cure the defect” in the complaint). 11 CONCLUSION 12 For the reasons explained above, the Court grants the Louisiana Defendants’

13 Motion to Dismiss. 14 15 16

17 1 Further, to the extent Plaintiff asserts claims against the Louisiana Defendants 18 arising under the “common law of the United States,” these too are precluded. See 19 La. Rev. Stat. § 13:5106(A) (“No suit against the state or a state agency or political

20 subdivision shall be instituted in any court other than a Louisiana state court.”). 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 2 1. The Louisiana Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 40, is

3 GRANTED. 4 2. Plaintiff’s claims against the Louisiana Defendants are DISMISSED. 5 3. Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 44, is DENIED as moot. If

6 Plaintiff does not intend proceed against Iberville Parish, as indicated 7 in his Motion to Dismiss, he may file a notice of voluntary dismissal 8 that conforms to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1) and LCivR 41(a)(1)(A). 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Executive is directed to enter this

10 Order, enter judgment, and provide a copy to the parties. 11 DATED April 25, 2025.

12 s/Mary K. Dimke MARY K. DIMKE 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15 16 17 18 19 20