King v. State of Louisiana

• Court: District Court, E.D. Washington
• Decided: January 29, 2025
• Docket: 1:24-cv-03180
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 Jan 29, 2025 2 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 7 DAVID LEE ROY KING, a/k/a/ DAVID L.R. KING, No. 1:24-CV-3180-MKD 8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 9 DISMISS v. 10 STATE OF LOUISIANA, 11 LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING, IBERVILLE PARISH, 12 STATE OF WASHINGTON, and WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECF No. 5 13 LICENSING,

14 Defendants.

15 Before the Court is the State of Washington and the Washington Department 16 of Licensing’s (the Washington Defendants) Motion to Dismiss. ECF No. 5. The 17 Court held a hearing on January 29, 2025. ECF No. 16. Plaintiff appeared pro se. 18 Brian J. Baker represented the Washington Defendants. The Court has reviewed 19 the record and is fully informed. For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants 20 the motion. 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 Louisiana, issued a traffic citation to Plaintiff. ECF No. 1-2 at 2. Plaintiff paid the 5 traffic citation on April 1, 2024. Id. On April 10, 2024, Plaintiff received an

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

10 “failed 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. The Washington

17 Defendants moved to dismiss on December 19, 2024. ECF No. 5. 18 LEGAL STANDARD 19 “To survive a [Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)] motion to dismiss, a complaint must

20 contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is 1 plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell 2 Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “Threadbare recitals of the

3 elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not 4 suffice.” Id. In considering a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the 5 Court must accept as true the well-pleaded factual allegations and any reasonable

6 inference to be drawn from them, but legal conclusions are not entitled to the same 7 assumption of truth. Id. A complaint must contain either direct or inferential 8 allegations respecting all the material elements necessary to sustain recovery under 9 some viable legal theory. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 562. “Factual allegations must be

10 enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Id. at 555. Because 11 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court liberally construes his pleadings. Capp v. 12 Cnty. of San Diego, 940 F.3d 1046, 1052 (9th Cir. 2019).

13 DISCUSSION 14 The Washington Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint under 15 Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), contending the Eleventh Amendment precludes Plaintiff’s 16 claims against them. ECF No. 5.

17 Plaintiff appears to assert claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See ECF No. 18 1 at 4-6. However, states and state agencies are not “persons” subject to suit under 19

20 1 Section 1983.1 See Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989) 2 (“We hold that neither a State nor its officials acting in their official capacities are

3 ‘persons’ under § 1983.”). Thus, to the extent Plaintiff asserts claims arising under 4 Section 1983, they are precluded by the Eleventh Amendment.2 The Court 5 therefore dismisses Plaintiff’s claims against the Washington Defendants, without

7 1 In his response to Defendants’ motion, Plaintiff appears to name—for the first 8 time—Marcus Glasper as a defendant in this action and notes “these causes of 9 action” are also brought against him. ECF No. 6 at 2. However, “it is ‘axiomatic 10 that the complaint may not be amended by the briefs in opposition to a motion to 11 dismiss.’” Apple Inc. v. Allan & Assoc. Ltd., 445 F. Supp. 3d 42, 59 (N.D. Cal. 12 2020) (quoting Frenzel v. AliphCom, 76 F. Supp. 3d 999, 1009 (N.D. Cal. 2014));

13 see, e.g., Lee v. City of Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 688 (9th Cir. 2001). For this 14 reason, the Court also does not consider Plaintiff’s Amended Affidavit, ECF No. 9, 15 which Plaintiff filed after the Washington Defendants moved to dismiss. 16 2 Further, to the extent Plaintiff asserts claims against the Washington Defendants

17 arising under the “common law of the United States,” these too are precluded by 18 the Eleventh Amendment. See Rains v. State, 674 P.2d 165, 170 (Wash. 1983) 19 (“[T]he State cannot be sued in federal court because of the Eleventh

20 Amendment.”). 1 prejudice. See Freeman v. Oakland Unified Sch. Dist., 179 F.3d 846, 847 (9th Cir. 2 1999) (holding that dismissals under the Eleventh Amendment should be without

3 prejudice so that the plaintiff “may reassert his claims in a competent court”). The 4 Court further denies leave to amend because no amendment can overcome 5 Eleventh Amendment immunity. See Lucas v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr., 66 F.3d 245,

6 248 (9th Cir. 1995) (holding that when a court dismisses a pro se plaintiff’s 7 complaint, it must give the plaintiff leave to amend “[u]nless it is absolutely clear 8 that no amendment can cure the defect” in the complaint). 9 CONCLUSION

10 For the reasons explained above, the Court grants the Washington 11 Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. 12 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

13 1. The Washington Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 5, is 14 GRANTED. 15 2. Plaintiff’s claims against the Washington Defendants are 16 DISMISSED.

17 3. Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike, ECF No. 13, is DENIED as moot. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Executive is directed to enter this 19 Order, enter judgment, and provide a copy to the parties.

20 1 DATED January 29, 2025.

2 s/Mary K. Dimke MARY K. DIMKE 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

17 18 19