Vicente v. Prescott, City of et al

Filing 81

ORDER granting 76 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction as to defendant Public Safety Personnel Retirement System. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 6/27/2013.(TCA)

Download PDF
1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 John Paul Vicente and Shawn Marie Vicente, No. CV-11-08204-PCT-DGC ORDER 10 Plaintiffs, 11 v. 12 City of Prescott, Arizona, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 Defendant, the Public Safety Personnel Retirement System (“PSPRS”), has filed a 16 motion to dismiss the claim against it for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Federal 17 Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). Doc. 76. Neither Plaintiffs nor other Defendants 18 oppose the motion. Docs. 79, 80. For the reasons that follow, the Court will grant the 19 motion. 20 Plaintiff John Paul Vicente alleges that Defendants illegally retaliated against him 21 for actions he took as the Chapter Vice President of the United Yavapai Firefighters, 22 Prescott Chapter, International Association of Fire Fighters Local 3066. Doc. 62. In 23 addition to other forms of retaliation, Plaintiff alleges that he was pressured under false 24 pretenses to enter into the Deferred Retirement Option Plan (“DROP”) administered by 25 PSPRS. Id. Plaintiff asks that the Court order PSPRS to rescind his forced enrollment in 26 the DROP program. Id. at 17. 27 Pursuant to Rule 19, Defendants requested that the Court join Plaintiff’s wife and 28 the Prescott Fire and Police Board of PSPRS as required parties. Doc. 39. The Court 1 granted the motion. Doc. 48. Instead of joining the Prescott Fire and Police Board of 2 PSPRS, Plaintiffs joined the statewide PSPRS. 3 The Eleventh Amendment provides that “[t]he Judicial power of the United States 4 shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted 5 against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of 6 any Foreign State.” U.S. Const. Amend. XI. The Eleventh Amendment bars federal 7 jurisdiction over suits against a non-consenting state. See, e.g., Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. 8 Florida, 517 U.S. 44, 62-65 (1996). The Supreme Court has interpreted the Eleventh 9 Amendment as prohibiting suits against a state by its own citizens. Port Auth. Trans- 10 Hudson Corp. v. Feeney, 495 U.S. 299, 304 (1990); Pennhurst State School and Hospital 11 v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100 (1984). Suing a state agency is the functional equivalent 12 of suing the state itself. See Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781 (1978). The Eleventh 13 Amendment bars suit against a state agency regardless of the type of relief sought. See 14 Pennhurst, 465 U.S. at 100; S. Pac. Transp. Co. v. City of Los Angeles, 922 F.2d 498, 508 15 (9th Cir. 1990). 16 PSPRS is an agency of the state of Arizona as established by A.R.S. § 38-841, et 17 seq. Thus the Eleventh Amendment bars the suit unless the State of Arizona consents. 18 Because all parties agree that the State has not waived its Eleventh Amendment 19 immunity, the Court must dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint against PSPRS. 20 IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 76) is granted. 21 Dated this 27th day of June, 2013. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?