Large v. Beckham County District Court

Filing 13

ORDER ADOPTING 7 Report and Recommendation, DISMISSING plf's complaint without prejudice pursuant to 28 USC § 1915A(b)(2), DENYING as moot 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by Johnathan C Large, DENYING as moot 6 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by Johnathan C Large, DENYING as moot the leave and/or other relief requested in 10 , 11 plf's letters. Signed by Honorable Stephen P. Friot on 1/6/14. (llg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

JOHNATHAN LARGE,
Plaintiff
v.
BECKHAM COUNTY DISTRICT
COURT,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CIV-13-1255-F

ORDER
Before the court are the Report and Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge Suzanne Mitchell [doc. no. 7] and plaintiff’s objection to the Report
and Recommendation [doc. no. 9]. The magistrate judge concluded that plaintiff’s
claim for monetary relief from the Beckham County District Court was barred by
Eleventh Amendment immunity because the state district court operates as an arm of
the State. Moreover, she found that the State of Oklahoma had not expressly waived
that immunity. Plaintiff objects, complaining that the case of Edward v. Whetsel,
2009 WL 368487 (WD. Okla. Feb. 13, 2009) (No. CIV-08-134-F), cited by the
magistrate judge, is only persuasive. Plaintiff also cites District of Columbia v.
Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 634-35 (2008) for the proposition that citizens of the state can
sue the state for “alleged wrongs and violations of the constitution of their own state.”
Objection [doc. no. 9] at p. 5. Finally, he suggests that the state’s Eleventh
Amendment immunity has either been abrogated or waived. See id. at pp. 5-6.

The magistrate judge did not rely exclusively on this court’s unpublished order
in Edward v. Whetsel, but relied as well on Okla. Const. art. 7, § 7. In any event, this
court’s unpublished order in Edwards v. Whetsel is persuasive and plaintiff has cited
no case law to the contrary. The State of Oklahoma has not waived its Eleventh
Amendment immunity. To find that it has done so requires a showing of unequivocal
intent to do so, see Guttman v. Khalsa, 669 F.3d 1101, 1110 (10th Cir. 2012). Plaintiff
has not made such a showing and the court finds no expression of that intent.
Moreover, plaintiff has cited no authority that the State of Oklahoma’s Eleventh
Amendment immunity has been abrogated. Finally, the Heller case is of no assistance
to plaintiff. In that case, the plaintiff sought only injunctive relief, not monetary relief
as is sought by plaintiff.
In summary, plaintiff’s objection is without merit and the Report and
Recommendation is ADOPTED in its entirety. Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED
without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(2). Plaintiff’s pending motions
for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [doc. nos. 2 & 6] are DENIED as moot.
Likewise, to the extent plaintiff by his letters [doc. nos. 10 & 11] seeks leave to file
a brief concerning filing fees or seeks other relief, such leave and/or other relief are
DENIED as moot.
Dated this 6th day of January, 2014.

13-1255p003.wpd

2