MARSHALL v. STATE OF INDIANA et al
Filing
42
OPINION AND ORDER - Robbie Marshall, an internal investigator for the Indiana Department of Correction, was fired in October 2016. He contends that his termination was based on discrimination and retaliation as a result of his sexual orientation a nd violated the Fourteenth amendment. He brings the suit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the state of Indiana, the Indiana Department of Correction, the Wabash Valley Correctional Facil ity, and the State of Indiana Personnel Department. The defendants move to dismiss, for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, all claims other than the Title VII claim against the Department of Correction. [Doc. No. 22 ]. For the reasons stated in this Order, the court grants that motion. The court GRANTS the defendants' partial motion to dismiss. [Doc. No. 22 ]. Mr. Marshall's Title VII claim against the Indiana Department of Correction may proceed, but all other claims against all other defendants are dismissed. (See Order). Signed by Judge Robert L. Miller, Jr on 10/17/2018. (APD)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
TERRE HAUTE DIVISION
ROBBIE L. MARSHALL,
)
)
Plaintiff
)
)
v.
)
)
STATE OF INDIANA, INDIANA
)
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION,
)
WABASH VALLEY CORRECTIONAL, )
FACILITY, and STATE OF INDIANA )
PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT
)
)
Defendants
)
Cause No. 2:18-CV-261 RLM-MJD
OPINION AND ORDER
Robbie Marshall, an internal investigator for the Indiana Department of
Correction, was fired in October 2016. He contends that his termination was
based on discrimination and retaliation as a result of his sexual orientation and
violated the Fourteenth amendment. He brings the suit under Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the state of
Indiana, the Indiana Department of Correction, the Wabash Valley Correctional
Facility, and the State of Indiana Personnel Department. The defendants move
to dismiss, for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, all claims
other than the Title VII claim against the Department of Correction. [Doc. No.
22]. For the reasons that follow, the court grants that motion.
When considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the court construes
the complaint in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, accepts all
well-pleaded facts as true, and draws all inferences in the nonmoving party's
favor. Reynolds v. CB Sports Bar, Inc., 623 F.3d 1143, 1146 (7th Cir. 2010). But
FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(2) “demands more than an unadorned, the-defendantunlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)
(citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)).
“To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient
factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. at 570). A claim is plausible if “the plaintiff pleads factual content that
allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for
the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Bell Atlantic
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). Twombly and Iqbal “require the plaintiff to
‘provid[e] some specific facts’ to support the legal claims asserted in the
compliant.” McCauley v. City of Chicago, 671 F.3d 611, 616 (7th Cir. 2011)
(quoting Brooks, 578 F.3d at 581)). The plaintiff “must give enough details about
the subject-matter of the case to present a story that holds together.” Swanson
v. Citibank, N.A., 614 F.3d 400, 404 (7th Cir. 2010).
The Indiana Department of Correction and the State of Indiana Personnel
Department are agencies of the State of Indiana; the Wabash Valley Correctional
Facility is a complex of buildings operated by the Department of Correction. They
can’t be sued in federal court. The Eleventh Amendment generally precludes a
citizen from suing a state or one of its agencies or departments in federal court.
Wynn v. Southward, 251 F.3d 588, 592 (7th Cir. 2001). There are three
2
exceptions to Eleventh Amendment immunity: (1) suits directly against the State
based on a cause of action where Congress has abrogated the state’s immunity
from suit; (2) suits directly against the State if the State waived its sovereign
immunity; and (3) suits against a State official seeking prospective equitable
relief for ongoing violations of federal law. MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Ill.
Commerce Comm’n, 183 F.3d 558, 563 (7th Cir. 1999). None of these exceptions
apply here. Congress didn’t abrogate the states’ immunity through the
enactment of §1983. Joseph v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Wis. Sys., 432 F.3d
746, 748 (7th Cir. 2005). Indiana hasn’t consented to this lawsuit, and Mr.
Marshall is only seeking monetary damages based on past events.
In opposition, Mr. Marshall cites decisions of Indiana state courts, but the
Eleventh Amendment has no impact on a state court’s jurisdiction over the state
and its agencies.
Nor can Mr. Marshall sue all of the defendants under Title VII. Only the
plaintiff’s employer can be liable under Title VII. See EEOC v. AIC Sec.
Investigations, Ltd., 55 F.3d 1276, 1279-1282 (7th Cir. 1995). According to ¶¶
18-19 of the complaint, the Department of Correction employed and terminated
Mr. Marshall. Like many other departments of state government, the Department
of Correction is an agency of the State of Indiana, but that doesn’t make the
State of Indiana Mr. Marshall’s employer. The State of Indiana Personnel
Department investigated the complaint against Mr. Marshall, but didn’t employ
him. Because the State of Indiana, Wabash Valley Correctional Facility, and
State of Indiana Personnel Department didn’t employ Mr. Marshall, the
3
complaint states no claim upon which relief can be granted against those
defendants.
Accordingly, the court GRANTS the defendants’ partial motion to dismiss.
[Doc. No. 22]. Mr. Marshall’s Title VII claim against the Indiana Department of
Correction may proceed, but all other claims against all other defendants are
dismissed.
SO ORDERED.
ENTERED: October 17, 2018
/s/ Robert L. Miller, Jr.
Judge, United States District Court
Distribution:
Kevin W. Betz
BETZ & BLEVINS
kbetz@betzadvocates.com
Jamie A. Maddox
BETZ & ASSOCIATES
jmaddox@betzadvocates.com
John Vincent Maurovich
COOTS, HENKE & WHEELER
jmaurovich@chwlaw.com
Cory Christian Voight
COOTS HENKE & WHEELER, P.C.
cvoight@chwlaw.com
4
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?