Lear v. Seattle Housing Authority et al

Filing 60

ORDER granting 48 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss with prejudice. Defendant Washington State terminated, by Judge James L. Robart.(MD, mailed copy of order to pltf)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

8
9
10

ROB LEAR,

CASE NO. C13-0347JLR
Plaintiff,

11
v.

12
13

ORDER GRANTING MOTION
TO DISMISS

SEATTLE HOUSING AUTHORITY,
et al.,

14
Defendants.
15
Before the court is Defendant the State of Washington’s (“the State”) motion to
16
dismiss plaintiff Rob Lear’s complaint. (Mot. (Dkt. # 48).) Mr. Lear has sued the Seattle
17
Housing Authority, the City of Seattle, and numerous other defendants in addition to the
18
State. (See Am. Compl. (Dkt. # 46).) He alleges civil conspiracy, industrial espionage,
19
housing discrimination, and other causes of action, claiming that he was “snatched.
20
Kidnapped. Entrapped. Ensnared.” (Id. at 12.) He alleges numerous instances of harm
21
directed at him by Defendants. (Id. at 12-27.)
22
ORDER- 1

1

The State moves to dismiss under the doctrine of sovereign immunity. The State

2 argues that it is immune from suit in federal court under the Eleventh Amendment and
3 that, accordingly, it should be dismissed from this action with prejudice.
4

The court agrees. Under the Eleventh Amendment and the doctrine of sovereign

5 immunity, states may not be sued in federal court unless they have consented or
6 sovereign immunity has been abrogated. Alaska Cargo Transp, Inc. v. Alaska R.R.
7 Corp., 5 F.3d 378, 379 (9th Cir. 1993). The State has not consented to being sued in
8 federal court. See, e.g., Marshall v. Labor & Indus., State of Washington, 89 F. Supp. 2d
9 4, 12 (D.D.C. 2000) (“Nothing in Washington’s law expressly or otherwise consents to
10 suit in federal court.”); Hennessey v. State of Wash., Dep’t of Soc. & Health Servs., 627
11 F. Supp. 137, 139 (E.D. Wash. 1985). Further, Mr. Lear does not make any argument
12 with respect to abrogation (see Resp.), nor does he assert any causes of action for which
13 there is a plausible basis for arguing abrogation (see Am. Compl.). Thus, the State may
14 not be sued. Alaska Cargo Transp., 5 F.3d at 379.
In response to the State’s motion, Mr. Lear cites several cases that do not apply

15

16 here, including DeShaney v. Winnebago Cnty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 489 U.S. 189 (1989)
17 and Cnty. of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833 (1998). These are both cases naming
18 counties as defendants, not states. Thus, these cases do not provide a basis for Mr. Lear
19 to get around Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity.
20 //
21 //
22 //
ORDER- 2

1

For the foregoing reasons, the State’s motion is GRANTED and the State is

2 DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as a defendant in this action.
3

Dated this 7th day of October, 2013.

4

6

A

7

JAMES L. ROBART
United States District Judge

5

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
ORDER- 3