Rodriguez v. State of New York et al

Filing 16

ORDER granting 6 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Hon. Michael A. Telesca on 12/03/2013. (BMB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
________________________________________
LUIS A. RODRIGUEZ,
Plaintiff,

13-CV-6301T
DECISION
and ORDER

v.
STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF MONROE,
CITY OF ROCHESTER, MONROE COUNTY SHERIFF,
and JOHN DOE, being a fictitious name
representing one or more officers or
employees of the City of Rochester
Police Department, Monroe County Office of
Probation, Monroe County Sheriff's Office,
New York State Police, and/or New York
State Department of Corrections, Division
of Parole, individually and in their
official capacities,
Defendants.
________________________________________

Plaintiff Luis A. Rodriguez (“Rodriguez”) brings this action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and New York State common law
alleging that his civil rights were violated by the defendants when
he was apprehended pursuant to the service of a bench warrant upon
him.

Specifically, the plaintiff alleges that he was subjected to

excessive use of force by the defendant officers after he attempted
to flee from officers who were attempting to serve the warrant on
him.

He claims that once the defendant officers apprehended him,

they

used

unreasonable,

subduing him.

unnecessary,

and

excessive

force

in

He claims that as a result of the excessive force

used by the defendants, a portion of one of his fingers was
completely and irreparably severed.

Defendant State of New York moves to dismiss plaintiff’s
Complaint against it on grounds that it is immune from plaintiff’s
claims pursuant to sovereign immunity granted to the State under
the

Eleventh

Amendment

to

the

United

States

Constitution.

Plaintiff opposes the State of New York’s motion to dismiss on
grounds that the court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over
state-law claims made against the State.
The State of New York’s motion to dismiss is granted.

The

Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees
that “non-consenting States may not be sued by private individuals
in federal court.”

Board of Trustees of Univ. of Alabama v.

Garrett, 531 U.S. 356, 367 (2001).

Accordingly, where a state

refuses to consent to being sued by a private citizen in Federal
Court, no such action can be maintained by a private citizen.

New

York State has not consented to being sued by private citizens in
Federal Court, and therefore, plaintiff may not maintain an action
against New York State in this court.
While it is well understood that the Eleventh Amendment
prohibits a private citizen of a state from suing a non-consenting
State in federal court pursuant to federal law, sovereign immunity
also extends to cases in which a private citizen attempts to sue a
non-consenting State in federal court alleging violations of State
law. As the Supreme Court of the United States stated in Pennhurst
State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 106 (1984) “it is

Page -2-

difficult to think of a greater intrusion on state sovereignty than
when a federal court instructs state officials on how to conform
their conduct to state law. Such a result conflicts directly with
the principles of federalism that underlie the Eleventh Amendment.”
Because New York State has not consented to being sued by any
private citizen for alleged violations of federal or State law, the
State is immune to plaintiff’s federal and state law claims.

I

therefore grant defendant State of New York’s motion to dismiss,
and dismiss plaintiff’s claims against the State of New York with
prejudice.
ALL OF THE ABOVE IS SO ORDERED.
S/ Michael A. Telesca
MICHAEL A. TELESCA
United States District Judge
Dated:

Rochester, New York
December 3, 2013

Page -3-