Bowers et al v. Whitman et al

Filing 20

Opinion and Order RE: Motion to Dismiss (Fifth Claim-Qualified Immunity) 11 , Motion to Dismiss (State of Oregon's Motion to Dismiss) 9 . Defendants' motion to dismiss 9 & 11 are granted. IT IS SO ORDERED. Ordered by Judge Owen M. Panner. (dkj)

FILED'10 FEB 0211 :J8USDC-ORH

I N THE UNITED STATES D I S T R I C T COURT FOR THE D I S T R I C T OF OREGON JON a n d LYNNA BOWERS, e t a l . , Civ. No. 09-3082-PA Plaintiffs, OPINION AND ORDER
v.

RICHARD WHITMAN, e t a l . , Defendants.

PANNER, J . Plaintiffs bring this action for declaratory and injunctive r e l i e f a n d m o n e y d a m a g e s u n d e r 42 U . S . C . § 1 9 8 3 a g a i n s t R i c h a r d Whitman, director of the s t a t e Department of Land Conservation a n d D e v e l o p m e n t ( D L C D ) , a n d t h e DLCD. Plaintiffs contend that

defendants violated their constitutional rights by treating Measure 37 waivers as i n v a l i d a f t e r t h e passage of Measure 49. See Citizens for Constitutional Fairness v. Jackson County, Civ. N o . 0 8 - 3 0 1 5 - P A , 2 0 0 8 WL 4 8 9 0 5 8 5 , a t * 1 - 2 (describing statutory background) . 1 - OPINION AND ORDER (D. O r . N o v . 1 2 , 2 0 0 8 )

The DLCD m o v e s t o d i s m i s s , a s s e r t i n g E l e v e n t h A m e n d m e n t immunity. Whitman moves to dismiss p l a i n t i f f s ' f i f t h claim, I grant the motions.

asserting qualified immunity.

BACKGROUND The following a l l e g a t i o n s are from the complaint. P l a i n t i f f s own r e a l p r o p e r t y i n J a c k s o n , J o s e p h i n e , a n d L a n e counties. P l a i n t i f f s o b t a i n e d M e a s u r e 37 w a i v e r s f r o m t h e i r T h e DLCO i s s u e d a r u l e p r o h i b i t i n g

respective counties.

p l a i n t i f f s from using t h e i r p r o p e r t y as allowed by t h e Measure 37 waivers unless they also received waivers from the State. Defendant Whitman was an attorney with the Oregon Department of Justice, where he helped plan the repeal of Measure 37. voters passed Measure 49, the Oregon Supreme Court held that M e a s u r e 4 9 i n v a l i d a t e d M e a s u r e 37 w a i v e r s . Corey v. Department After

of Land Conservation and Dev., 344 Or. 457, 465, 184 P.3d 1109, 1113 (2008). Plaintiffs allege, "There exists a pattern of non-

consideration of the Constitutional question in the state courts
and in the absence of Federal Court adjudication these p l a i n t i f f s

will continue to be denied hearing of their Constitutional complaints." Compl. 14,
~

31.

F o u r o f p l a i n t i f f s ' c l a i m s a r e a g a i n s t b o t h t h e DLCD a n d Whitman. Plaintiffs seek injunctive r e l i e f and declarations that

defendants violated their rights to due process under the Fifth Amendment, to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment,

2

- OPINION AND ORDER

and t o d u e p r o c e s s u n d e r t h e F o u r t e e n t h A m e n d m e n t .

Plaintiffs'

f i f t h claim against Whitman alleges t h a t he violated p l a i n t i f f s ' c i v i l rights, acting "with oppression, fraud and malice." 29,
~

Compl.

87.

P l a i n t i f f s seek compensatory and punitive damages

against Whitman.
STANDARDS

In ruling on a motion to dismiss for f a i l u r e to s t a t e a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b) (6), the court takes a l l allegations of material fact as true and construes them in the l i g h t most favorable to the nonmoving party. See Oiaz v.

I n t ' l Longshore and Warehouse Union, 474 F.3d 1202, 1205 (9th Cir. 2007).
I. T h e OLCO's M o t i o n t o O i s m i s s A. T h e OLCO I s N o t a " P e r s o n " U n d e r 4 2 U . S . C . § 1 9 8 3
§

P l a i n t i f f s b a s e t h e i r c l a i m s a g a i n s t t h e OLCO o n 42 U . S . C . 1983. By i t s t e r m s ,
§

1983 applies only to "persons," and a
§

state is not a "person" under 1387, 1398 (9th Cir. 1993)

1983.

Hale v. Arizona, 993 F.2d

(citing will v. Michigan Oep't of "This limitation on Id. T h e OLCO, a
§

S t a t e Police, 491 U.S. 58, 65-66 (1989)). 1983 also extends to 'arms of the S t a t e . '" s t a t e agency, i s an arm of the s t a t e . "person" for purposes of a claim under

B e c a u s e t h e OLCO i s n o t a
§

1983, p l a i n t i f f s '

c l a i m s a g a i n s t t h e OLCO m u s t b e d i s m i s s e d f o r f a i l u r e t o s t a t e a claim. 3 - OPINION AND ORDER

B.

Eleven t h Amendment Immuni t y

A l t e r n a t i v e l y , p l a i n t i f f s ' c l a i m s a g a i n s t t h e DLCD m u s t b e dismissed because of Eleventh Amendment immunity. "Under the

Eleventh Amendment, a s t a t e i s immune from s u i t under s t a t e or federal law by private parties in federal court absent a valid abrogation of that immunity or an express waiver by the state." In re Mitchell, 209 F.3d 1111, 1115-16 (9th Cir. 2000) (footnote

omitted), overruled in part on other grounds, Kimel v. Florida B d . o f R e g e n t s , 5 2 8 U . S . 62
1.

(2000).

T h e r e Has B e e n No E x p r e s s W a i v e r

The Eleventh Amendment c r e a t e s a p r i v i l e g e t h a t the s t a t e may waive by f a i l i n g t o timely a s s e r t the p r i v i l e g e . Harrell v.

S o u t h e r n O r e g o n U n i v . , C i v . N o . 0 8 - 3 0 3 7 - C L , s l i p o p . a t 3 (D. O r . June 30, 2008) (citing Hill v. Blind Indus. & Servs. of Maryland, (9th Cir. 1999), amended, 201 F.3d 1186

179 F.3d 754, 760 (2000) ).

Here, the State of Oregon timely asserted Eleventh

Amendment immunity.
2. T h e r e I s No A b r o g a t i o n

"Section 1983 does not abrogate the s t a t e s ' Eleventh Amendment immunity from s u i t . " 1387, 1398 (9th Cir. 1993) 344-45 (1979)). Hale v. State of Ariz., 993 F.2d

(citing Quern v. Jordan,

440 U.S. 332,

I t makes no difference t h a t p l a i n t i f f s seek

prospective injunctive r e l i e f r a t h e r than money damages against t h e DLCD. See Rounds v. Oregon S t a t e Bd. of Higher Educ., 166

4

- O P I N I O N AND ORDER

F.3d 1 0 3 2 , 1 0 3 6 ( 9 t h C i r . 1 9 9 9 )

("Eleventh Amendment's

jurisdictional bar applies 'regardless of the nature of the r e l i e f sought' ") (quoting Pennhurst State Sch.
&

Hosp. v.

Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100 (1984)). immunity under the Eleventh Amendment.
3.

T h e DLCD i s e n t i t l e d t o

Whitman I s a Proper Defendant Under Ex parte Young

P l a i n t i f f s ' c l a i m s a g a i n s t t h e DLCD a l s o n a m e W h i t m a n a s a defendant. Because Whitman himself i s not e n t i t l e d to Eleventh

A m e n d m e n t i m m u n i t y , d i s m i s s i n g t h e DLCD a s a d e f e n d a n t h a s l i t t l e p r a c t i c a l e f f e c t on the claims a t issue. I n Ex p a r t e Young, 2 0 9 U . S . 1 2 3 , 1 5 9 - 6 0 ( 1 9 0 8 ) , t h e C o u r t held t h a t the Eleventh Amendment does not bar a c t i o n s i n f e d e r a l court to compel a s t a t e o f f i c i a l to comply with federal law. U n d e r t h e d o c t r i n e o f Ex p a r t e Y o u n g , p l a i n t i f f s m a y p r o c e e d w i t h their claims for prospective injunctive and declaratory r e l i e f against Whitman. (1974) See Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 667-69

(Eleventh Amendment does not bar a c t i o n t o compel s t a t e

compliance with federal welfare standards, but does bar order requiring payment of past due benefits). This c o u r t may e n j o i n a

state official "even i f [the injunction] might require substantial outlay of funds from the s t a t e treasury, provided that i t does not award retroactive r e l i e f for past conduct." Natural Resources Defense Council v. California Dep't of Transp., 96 F . 3 d 4 2 0 , 4 2 2 (9th Cir. 1996) (citation omitted).

5

- OPINION AND ORDER

At o r a l a r g u m e n t , p l a i n t i f f s ' c o u n s e l c i t e d t h e v e n e r a b l e case of Poindexter v. Greenhow, 114

u . s . 270 (1885).

In

Poindexter, the Court held t h a t the Eleventh Amendment did not bar an action in federal court against a state tax collector for alleged illegal conduct. The Court reasoned t h a t the action

against the s t a t e o f f i c i a l was not an action against the s t a t e itself. Unlike the complaint here, in Poindexter the plaintiff

did not name t h e s t a t e or any s t a t e agency as a defendant. Neither Poindexter nor any of the other decisions cited by p l a i n t i f f s s u p p o r t s t h e i r a r g u m e n t t h a t t h e DLCD i s s u b j e c t t o suit here. P l a i n t i f f s argue t h a t Eleventh Amendment immunity a p p l i e s only to claims based on d i v e r s i t y j u r i s d i c t i o n , and not to claims based on federal question jurisdiction. Plaintiffs are wrong.

"Eleventh Amendment immunity represents a r e a l l i m i t a t i o n on a federal court's federal-question jurisdiction." d'Alene Tribe, 521 Idaho v. Coeur

u . s . 261, 270 (1997).

The Supreme Court has

often applied Eleventh Amendment immunity i n f e d e r a l question cases. See, e.g., Will, 491 U.S. 58; Pennhurst, 465 U.S. 89;

H a n s v . L o u i s i a n a , 1 3 4 U. S . 1 ( 1 8 9 0 ) .
II. Motion to Dismiss Fifth Claim on Qualified Immunity Grounds

Defendants move t o dismiss the f i f t h claim a g a i n s t Whitman, which seeks compensatory and punitive damages based on Whitman's a c t i o n s a s d i r e c t o r o f t h e DLCD. P l a i n t i f f s allege Whitman

6

- OPINION AND ORDER

threatened c o u n t y c o m m i s s i o n e r s w i t h s a n c t i o n s i f t h e y f a i l e d t o follow his directions, and interfered with county hearings on land use issues. I agree with defendants t h a t Whitman i s

e n t i t l e d to qualified immunity on t h i s claim. Qualified immunity i s "'an immunity from s u i t rather than a mere defense t o l i a b i l i t y . '" 808, 815 (2009) (1985) ). Pearson v. Callahan, 129 S. Ct.

(quoting Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526

"When an o f f i c e r a s s e r t s immunity, t h e c o u r t d i s m i s s e s

t h e case u n l e s s t h e o f f i c e r knew t h a t h i s conduct was ' c l e a r l y unlawful,' that i s , unless the officer understood or should have understood that his actions violated a clearly established right." M a t t o s v . A g a r a n o , - - - F . 3 d - - - - , 2 0 1 0 WL 9 2 4 7 8 , a t * 3 (citation omitted). The p l a i n t i f f

(9th Cir. Jan. 12, 2010)

"bears the burden of showing t h a t the r i g h t a t issue was c l e a r l y established." 2002) S o r r e l s v. McKee, 290 F.3d 965, 969 (9th C i r .

(citation omitted) . P l a i n t i f f s have not shown t h a t a reasonable o f f i c i a l in

Whitman's position should have understood that his alleged conduct violated plaintiffs' clearly established rights. The

O r e g o n S u p r e m e C o u r t h e l d t h a t M e a s u r e 4 9 i n v a l i d a t e d M e a s u r e 37 waivers. Corey, 344 Or. a t 465, 184 P.3d a t 1113. As d i r e c t o r

o f t h e OLCO, W h i t m a n w a s r e q u i r e d t o e n f o r c e O r e g o n l a n d u s e l a w , i n c l u d i n g c o o r d i n a t i n g t h e OLCO's a c t i o n s with l o c a l governments. Or. Rev. S t a t .
§

197.090 (1) (b) .

7

- OPINION AND ORDER

In C i t i z e n s F o r C o n s t i t u t i o n a l F a i r n e s s , C i v . N o . 0 8 - 3 0 1 5 PA, 2 0 0 8 WL 4 8 9 0 5 8 5 , I r u l e d f o r t h e p l a i n t i f f s o n t h e i r c l a i m s under the Contract Clause and separation of powers. Those

r u l i n g s , now o n a p p e a l , d o n o t s h o w W h i t m a n ' s a l l e g e d c o n d u c t violated clearly established rights. Because the law governing p l a i n t i f f s ' claims is not clearly established, Whitman i s e n t i t l e d to q u a l i f i e d immunity. not address whether plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged violations of their constitutional rights. Ct. at 821-22.
CONCLUSION

I need

See Pearson, 129 S.

Defendants' motions to dismiss (9, 11) are granted. I T I S SO ORDERED. DATED t h i s day of February, 2010.

OWEN M. PANNER U . S . D I S T R I C T JUDGE

8

- ORDER