Mecham v. Utah State Department of Corrections et al

Filing 36

ORDER AND MEMORANDUM DECISION granting 14 Defendant DOC's Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge Clark Waddoups on 03/12/10. (mas)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH CENTRAL DIVISION _________________________________________________________________ ) ORDER AND MEMORANDUM DECISION ) Plaintiff, ) Case No. 2:09-CV-149 CW ) v. ) District Judge Clark Waddoups ) UTAH DEP'T OF CORRS. et al., ) ) Defendants. ) _________________________________________________________________ JEFF MECHAM, Defendant Utah Department of Corrections (DOC) moves to be dismissed from this case as a defendant. Plaintiff/inmate Mecham asserts against DOC a claim for wrongful termination from a prison job in violation of state public policy. As argued by DOC and essentially conceded by Plaintiff, Plaintiff's claim against DOC is barred because of DOC's immunity under the Eleventh Amendment, see Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 106 (1984); Olson v. Finney, 885 F. Supp. 1480, 1485 (D. Kan. 1995) ("Eleventh Amendment immunity . . . provides not only a defense to liability, but operates as an immunity to suit, including burdens of discovery and trial."), and the Utah Governmental Immunity Act (Immunity Act), Utah Code Ann. 63G-7-101 et seq. (2009); Broadbent v. Bd. of Educ., 910 P.2d 1274, 1277 (Utah Ct. App. 1996) (dismissing teacher's wrongful termination-in-violation-of-public-policy claim because it sounded in type of tort not waived by Immunity Act). Plaintiff also does not refute DOC's argument that he failed to comply with the procedural requirements of the Immunity Act. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant DOC's motion to be dismissed as a defendant is GRANTED. (See Docket Entry # 14.) DATED this 12th day of March, 2010. BY THE COURT: ___________________________ CLARK WADDOUPS United States District Judge 2

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?