The City of Eufaula, Alabama et al v. Alabama Department of Transportation et al

Filing 18

ORDER: Based on representations made on-the-record on 12/9/2014, it is ORDERED that the 2 Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order is set for submission, withe briefs due, on 12/22/2014, with the court to reach its decision on 12/31/2014. The stat e has agreed to delay its groundbreaking until the court has decided on the matter. Motion Submission Deadline set for 12/22/2014. In addition, the parties should also address in their briefs why Pennhurst State School & Hospital v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (1984), does not preclude the state-law claims in this case as further set out in the order. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 12/10/2014. (dmn, )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION
CITY OF EUFAULA, ALABAMA
et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION, et al.
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION NO.
2:14cv1206-MHT
(WO)

ORDER
Based on the representations made on-the-record on
December 9, 2014, it is ORDERED that the motion for a
temporary restraining order (doc. no. 2) is set for
submission, with briefs due, on December 22, 2014, with
the court to reach its decision on December 31, 2014.
The state has agreed to delay its groundbreaking until
the court has decided on the matter.
In addition, the parties should also address in
their briefs why Pennhurst State School & Hospital v.
Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (1984), does not preclude the

state-law claims in this case.

In Pennhurst, residents

of a state facility for people with mental disabilities
claimed that the unsanitary and dangerous conditions in
the facility violated federal and state law.
at 92.
of

465 U.S.

Without reaching the federal issues, the court

appeals

found

grounds alone.

for

the

Id. at 95.

plaintiffs

on

state-law

The Supreme Court reversed,

holding that “a claim that state officials violated
state

law

in

carrying

out

their

official

responsibilities is a claim against the State that is
protected by the Eleventh Amendment,” and that such
protection “applies as well to state-law claims brought
into federal court under pendent jurisdiction.”

Id. at

121.
The question for the parties is how, or if, the
state-law

claims

distinguishable.

in
The

the
court

current
seeks

to

case
resolve

are
this

question now because time is of the essence and, should
this court dismiss the state-law claims and deny relief
on the federal claims, plaintiffs may want to be in a
2

position
court

to

with

pursue

their

dispatch.

state-law

Indeed,

it

claims
may

be

in
wise

state
for

plaintiffs to initiate their state-law claims in state
court now.
DONE, this the 10th day of December, 2014.
/s/ Myron H. Thompson___
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE