Woodall v. Arizona, State of

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: May 6, 2022
• Docket: 2:22-cv-00384
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

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

9 Nicholas Woodall, No. CV-22-00384-PHX-DLR

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 State of Arizona,

13 Defendant. 14 15 16 The Court previously waived Plaintiff’s fees but dismissed his first amended 17 complaint (“FAC”) without prejudice. (Doc. 17.) Among other deficiencies, the Court 18 explained that Plaintiff could not sue the State of Arizona for damages stemming from 19 alleged constitutional violations because the State is not a person under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 20 Plaintiff has now filed a second amended complaint (“SAC”), which again names the State, 21 this time as the sole defendant. (Doc. 18.) Plaintiff accuses the State of enacting and 22 enforcing ex post facto laws in violation of the Constitution and alleges that these laws 23 have made him ineligible for certain jobs. Plaintiffs’ SAC must be dismissed because, as 24 previously explained, he cannot sue the State in federal court for violating his constitutional 25 rights. See Marcotte v. Monroe Corrections Complex, 394 F. Supp. 2d 1289, 1294 (W.D. 26 Wash. 2005) (“‘Persons’ liable for damages under Section 1983 include state employees 27 sued in their individual capacities. States and their agencies and state employees sued in 28 their official capacities are not proper defendants under Section 1983 and therefore cannot 1 || be sued under the statute.” (internal citations omitted)). This is true even if Plaintiff is || seeking injunctive relief instead of damages. See Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908) || (permitting suits to enjoin enforcement of unconstitutional laws to be brought against state 4|| officials responsible for enforcing those laws, but not against the state itself). 5 This is Plaintiff's second amended complaint, and third overall. Having identified 6 || these infirmities and given Plaintiff an opportunity to cure them, the Court finds further 7\| leave unwarranted. 8 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 18) is DISMISSED. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate the case. 10 Dated this 6th day of May, 2022. 11 12 13 , {Z, 14 _- {UO 15 Usted States Dictric Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

_2-