Buras v. State Health Office of Vital Records State of Louisiana

Filing 8

ORDER granting 6 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. CASE CLOSED. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey. (jrc, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
RICKY M. BURAS

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO: 13-2634

STATE OF LOUISIANA,
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH &
HOSPITALS

SECTION: "A" (1)

ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss (Rec. Doc. 6) filed by defendant the
State of Louisiana, through its Department of Health and Hospitals. Plaintiff Ricky M. Buras
opposes the motion. The motion, scheduled for submission on September 25, 2013, is before
the Court on the briefs without oral argument.
Plaintiff Ricky M. Buras filed this action pro se and in forma pauperis against the
State of Louisiana, through its Department of Health and Hospitals (“DHH”). As the Court
appreciates the facts, Buras’s father and his attorney obtained an amendment of some sort
to Buras’s birth certificate in 1965. Apparently Buras has attempted more than once without
success to re-amend the birth certificate but DHH refuses. In prior state court proceedings,
DHH informed Buras that it could not locate the original evidence upon which the
amendment in 1965 had been based. It is Buras’s contention that if DHH cannot produce the
original evidence then the nearly 50 year old amendment must be voided. Buras claims that
DHH’s refusal to re-amend the birth certificate violates La. R.S. § 40:2661 which in turn
violates his constitutional rights.

The Court has been unable to locate any such statute but the specific state statute at
issue is not material to the Court’s analysis of jurisdiction.
1

1

DHH moves to dismiss the complaint arguing that it is immune from suit in a federal
court pursuant to the Eleventh Amendment. In opposition Buras clarifies that he is not
seeking via this suit to have his birth certificate amended. Rather, he is suing to vindicate the
violation of his rights. In fact, in his complaint Buras advises that he seeks money damages.
Buras also argues that DHH waived any immunities that it might have had when its
attorneys violated La. R.S. § 40:266.
This Court clearly lacks jurisdiction over the complaint. The Eleventh Amendment
serves as a jurisdictional bar depriving federal courts of the jurisdiction to adjudicate claims
against the state. Union Pac. R. Co. v. La. Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 662 F.3d 336, 340 (5th Cir.
2011). Both federal and state law claims are barred from being asserted against a state in
federal court. Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 119-21 (1984).
Eleventh Amendment immunity applies to any state agency or other entity of the state.
Perez v. Region 20 Educ. Serv. Ctr., 307 F.3d 318, 326 (5th Cir. 2002). Moreover, the
conduct of the attorneys acting for DHH when Buras filed suit in state court does not
constitute a waiver of the state’s immunity. See Magnolia Venture Cap. Grp. v. Prudential
Sec., Inc., 151 F.3d 439, 444-45 (5th Cir. 1998).
Accordingly, and for the foregoing reasons;
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss (Rec. Doc. 6) filed by the State of
Louisiana, through its Department of Health and Hospitals is GRANTED and the
complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.
September 25, 2013
JAY C. ZAINEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2