Phillips-Berry v. Louisiana State et al
Filing
23
ORDER and REASONS - Before the Court is the State of Louisiana's motion to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, the State of Louisiana's motion to dismiss is GRANTED, as stated within document. Signed by Judge Martin L.C. Feldman on 8/7/2018. (cbs)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
SHANTA G. PHILLIPS-BERRY
CIVIL ACTION
V.
NO. 18-6037
STATE OF LOUISIANA, ET AL.
SECTION "F"
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is the State of Louisiana’s motion to dismiss
the plaintiff’s complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Shanta
Phillips-Berry
sued
the
State
of
Louisiana
and
Patricia Scurlock on June 18, 2018. In her complaint she alleges
that a physician at Oschner Hospital implanted a device into her
body that is controlled by the use of a hand held device. PhillipsBerry’s precise allegations are unclear, 1 but she states that she
seeks to reveal criminal acts committed by the state or state
actors. The State of Louisiana moved to dismiss the complaint on
July 23, 2018.
Motions filed under Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure allow a party to challenge a federal district
court's subject matter jurisdiction. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1). The
State
of
Louisiana
challenges
1
this
Court’s
subject
matter
The plaintiff’s complaint is incoherent and fails to articulate
the basis for its claim, or the relief it seeks.
1
jurisdiction
under
Rule
12(b)(1),
invoking
the
Eleventh
Amendment’s doctrine of sovereign immunity with respect to the
plaintiff’s federal civil rights claims. The burden of proof for
a Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss is on the party asserting
jurisdiction. Choice Inc. of Texas v. Greenstein, 627 F.3d 710,
714 (5th Cir. 2010)(citations omitted).
"Sovereign immunity is the privilege of the sovereign not to
be sued without its consent." Va. Office for Prot. & Advocacy v.
Stewart, 131 S.Ct. 1632, 1637 (2011); Frew ex rel. Frew v. Hawkins,
540 U.S. 431, 437 (2004)(citing Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida,
517 U.S. 44, 54 (1996)). 1 A federal district court lacks subject
matter jurisdiction where the named defendant is protected by
Eleventh Amendment immunity. See Wagstaff v. U.S. Dep't of Educ.,
509 F.3d 661, 664 (5th Cir. 2007)(per curiam). This jurisdictional
bar
applies
regardless
of
the
nature
of
the
relief
sought.
Pennhurst State School & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100-01
(1984). Indeed, not only does the Eleventh Amendment preclude
individuals from suing a state in federal court for money damages,
it also bars injunctive and declaratory suits against the state,
unless the state consents to suit, or its immunity is otherwise
1
The Eleventh Amendment instructs that "[t]he Judicial Power of
the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in
law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United
States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of
any foreign State."
2
overcome by application of waiver, abrogation, or Ex parte Young
doctrines. See id.; see also Pennhurst State School & Hosp. v.
Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100-01 (1984); see also Cory v. White, 457
U.S. 85, 91 (1982).
In precluding suits against states, it is settled that, absent
an exception, the Eleventh Amendment necessarily embraces claims
asserted
by
individuals
against
states,
their
agencies
or
departments, and state actors in their official capacities, as
well as state courts. See K.P. v. LeBlanc, 627 F.3d 115, 124 (5th
Cir. 2010)(citing Hutto v. Finney, 437 U.S. 678, 700 (1978)); see
Mahogany v. Louisiana State Supreme Court, 262 Fed.Appx. 636 (5th
Cir. Jan. 25, 2008)(unpublished)(citing S. Christian Leadership
Conference v. Sup. Ct., 252 F.3d 781, 782 n.2 (5th Cir.), cert.
denied, 534 U.S. 995 (2001) and Jefferson v. La. State Sup. Ct.,
46 Fed.Appx. 732 (5th Cir. 2002)). Here, the plaintiff names as a
defendant the State of Louisiana, which is barred by the Eleventh
Amendment. Therefore, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction
over the plaintiff’s claims against the State of Louisiana.
Accordingly, the State of Louisiana’s motion to dismiss is
GRANTED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, August 7, 2018
______________________________
MARTIN L. C. FELDMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3
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?