MacEwen v. Inslee

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: July 24, 2020
• Docket: 3:20-cv-05423
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 5 AT TACOMA 6 DREW MACEWEN, et al., CASE NO. C20-5423 BHS 7 Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ 8 v. MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND ORDER TO 9 JAY INSLEE, in his official capacity as SHOW CAUSE the Governor of Washington, 10 Defendant. 11

12 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs Drew MacEwen, Bruce Russell, 13 Lee Pfluger, Brandon Vick, Chris Corry, Fran Wills, Andrew Barkis, and Michael 14 McKee (“Plaintiffs”) motion for a preliminary injunction. Dkt. 14. The Court has 15 considered the pleadings filed in support of and in opposition to the motion and the 16 remainder of the file and hereby denies the motion for the reasons stated herein. 17 I. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND 18 On May 5, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Defendant Jay Inslee in his 19 official capacity as the Governor of Washington alleging numerous violations of their 20 constitutional rights. Dkt. 1. In short, Plaintiffs allege that Governor Inslee’s 21 Proclamations under his emergency powers in response to the COVID-19 pandemic 22 infringe rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and violate provisions of the 1 Washington Constitution. Id., ¶¶ 315–323. Plaintiffs seek a declaration that the 2 Proclamations are unconstitutional, an injunction enjoining Governor Inslee and anyone

3 acting on behalf or in concert with him from enforcing the Proclamations, and costs and 4 attorney’s fees. Id., ¶¶ 327–329. 5 On May 26, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction arguing that 6 they are likely to succeed on four claims alleging violations of the United States 7 Constitution. Dkt. 14. On June 15, 2020, Governor Inslee responded opposing the 8 motion on various procedural grounds and on the merits. Dkt. 31. On June 19, 2020,

9 Plaintiffs replied and submitted new evidence in support of the reply. Dkts. 37–39. On 10 June 23, 2020, Governor Inslee filed a surreply requesting that the Court strike new 11 evidence and argument submitted for the first time in reply. Dkt. 41. On July 16, 2020, 12 Governor Inslee filed a notice of additional authority. Dkt. 42. 13 II. DISCUSSION1

14 “The Eleventh Amendment creates an important limitation on federal court 15 jurisdiction, generally prohibiting federal courts from hearing suits brought by private 16 citizens against state governments without the state’s consent.” Sofamor Danek Grp., 17 Inc. v. Brown, 124 F.3d 1179, 1183 (9th Cir. 1997). The Supreme Court recognized an 18 exception to this jurisdictional bar in Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908) holding that

20 1 The Court resolves the motion on the briefs because the Court would not benefit from oral argument and no party requested such argument as set forth in the local rules. See Local 21 Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 7(d)(4) (“A party desiring oral argument shall so indicate by including the words ‘ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED’ in the caption of its motion or responsive 22 memorandum.”) 1 “federal courts have jurisdiction over suits against state officers to enjoin official actions 2 that violate federal law, even if the state itself is immune from suit under the Eleventh

3 Amendment.” Sofamor, 124 F.3d at 1183. The officer sued, however, “must have some 4 connection with the enforcement of the [allegedly unconstitutional] act.” Ex parte 5 Young, 209 U.S. at 157. The Ninth Circuit has held that the “connection must be fairly 6 direct; a generalized duty to enforce state law or general supervisory power over the 7 persons responsible for enforcing the challenged provision will not subject an official to 8 suit.” L.A. Cty. Bar Ass’n v. Eu, 979 F.2d 697, 704 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing Long v. Van de

9 Kamp, 961 F.2d 151, 152 (9th Cir. 1992)). Where the official “cannot direct, in a binding 10 fashion, the prosecutorial activities of the officers who actually enforce the law or bring 11 his own prosecution, he may not be a proper defendant.” Planned Parenthood of Idaho, 12 Inc. v. Wasden, 376 F.3d 908, 919 (9th Cir. 2004); see also Tohono O’odham Nation v. 13 Ducey, 130 F. Supp. 3d 1301, 1311 (D. Ariz. 2015) (“Were the law otherwise, the

14 exception would always apply. Governors who influence state executive branch policies 15 (which virtually all governors do) would always be subject to suit under Ex parte Young. 16 The exception would become the rule.”). 17 In this case, Governor Inslee argues that the Court lacks jurisdiction to consider 18 the claims against him because he does not have any connection with the enforcement of

19 the Proclamations. Dkt. 31 at 21–22. Although Governor Inslee concedes that he has 20 authority to issue, amend, and rescind emergency orders, he contends that enforcement 21 powers lie with other officials. Id. at 22. The Court finds the Governor’s argument not 22 only persuasive but also consistent with the Fifth Circuit’s holding in In re Abbott, 956 1 F.3d 696 (5th Cir. 2020). There, the governor of Texas issued an emergency order 2 postponing “non-essential surgeries and procedures until April 22[, 2020] to combat the

3 COVID-19 pandemic.” Id. at 704. Although the governor issued the order, the court 4 held that the district court had erred in failing to dismiss the governor and the state 5 attorney general from a lawsuit challenging the governor’s emergency order because both 6 officials “lack[ed] the required enforcement connection” to the order. Id. at 708–10. In 7 the absence of Ninth Circuit authority to the contrary, this is an extremely persuasive 8 authority in support of Governor Inslee’s position.

9 In reply, Plaintiffs fail to cite any authority to the contrary. Instead, they provide 10 one paragraph of argument simply asserting positions that are unsupported in the record 11 such as “the Governor is directly responsible for the threat of criminal prosecution that 12 the Plaintiffs face.” Dkt. 37 at 12–13. Contrary to Plaintiffs’ argument, “[t]he power to 13 promulgate law is not the power to enforce it.” In re Abbott, 956 F.3d at 709 (citing

14 Martin v. Occupational Safety & Health Review Comm’n, 499 U.S. 144, 152 (1991)). 15 Therefore, the Court denies Plaintiffs’ motion because they have failed to establish the 16 first element of preliminary relief, which is a likelihood of success on the merits. See 17 Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). 18 Finally, “[i]f the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter

19 jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). It appears that 20 the Court lacks jurisdiction over the claims in Plaintiffs’ complaint. Thus, the Court 21 orders any party to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for lack of 22 jurisdiction. 1 III. ORDER 2 Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary

3 injunction, Dkt. 14, is DENIED. Any party may show cause no later than July 31, 2020 4 as set forth herein. Failure to respond or show adequate cause will result in dismissal of 5 the complaint without prejudice. 6 Dated this 24th day of July, 2020. A 7 8 BENJAMIN H. SETTLE 9 United States District Judge

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22