Felix v. Wisconsin Unemployment Insurance
Filing
24
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge William E Duffin. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the defendant's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 13 ) is granted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff's Motion for Discovery Date (ECF No. 17 ) is denied as moot. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff's complaint and this action are dismissed with prejudice. (cc: all counsel, plaintiff) (asc)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
TIMOTHY L. FELIX, JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 15-CV-1022
WISCONSIN UNEMPLOYMENT
INSURANCE DIVISION,
Defendant.
ORDER
In August 2015 pro se plaintiff Timothy Felix filed a complaint alleging that
defendant State of Wisconsin Unemployment Insurance Division (the Division)
wrongfully refused to pay him unemployment benefits. (ECF No. 1.) On October 30,
2015, the Division moved to dismiss the complaint. (ECF No. 13.) In accordance with 28
U.S.C. § 636(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 73(b), the parties have consented to the full
jurisdiction of a magistrate judge. (ECF Nos. 3, 10.) Because the Division is not a suable
entity and because Felix’s claim is barred under the Eleventh Amendment, the motion
must be granted.
When a complaint “fail[s] to state a claim upon which relief can be granted,” a
defendant may move to dismiss it. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). A motion to dismiss
challenges not the merits of the suit but the sufficiency of the complaint. Five Star
Airport Alliance, Inc. v. Milwaukee Cnty., 939 F. Supp. 2d 936, 937 (E.D. Wis. 2013) (citing
Gibson v. City of Chicago, 910 F.2d 1510, 1520 (7th Cir. 1990)). To avoid dismissal, a
complaint must contain allegations that “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual
content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is
liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. at 678. The court presumes that all of Felix’s
allegations are true and will draw all reasonable inferences in his favor. Suesz v. Med-1
Sols., LLC, 757 F.3d 636, 638 (7th Cir. 2014).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(b) provides that a party’s capacity to be sued
is determined “by the law of the state where the court is located,” which in this case is
Wisconsin. Buchanan v. City of Kenosha, 57 F. Supp. 2d 675, 678 (E.D. Wis. 1999). The
complaint names only the Division as defendant. (ECF No. 1.) However, the Division is
not a “principal administrative unit” within the Wisconsin state executive branch. Wis.
Stat. § 15.02(2). It is a subunit within the Department of Workforce Development. Wis.
Admin. Code § DWD 140.001(2)(ar). Only a principal administrative unit of the
Wisconsin government may be sued. See Bell v. Dep't of Vocational Rehab., No. 11-C-598,
2
2011 WL 5921369, at *2-3 (E.D. Wis. Nov. 28, 2011) (unpublished). Because the Division
is not such an entity, it cannot be sued. Id.
A plaintiff is ordinarily offered an opportunity to amend his complaint and name
the correct defendant. See Perkins v. Silverstein, 939 F.2d 463, 471 (7th Cir. 1991) (“[A]
plaintiff’s right to amend as a matter of course survives a motion to dismiss….”). But
Felix’s claim is also barred under the Eleventh Amendment. Therefore, the complaint
must be dismissed with prejudice. That is to say, Felix may not file an amended
complaint.
The Eleventh Amendment bars a citizen from suing a state (and its agencies and
state officials acting in their official capacity) in federal court unless the state waived
sovereign immunity, Congress abrogated the immunity, or the plaintiff “seeks
prospective equitable relief for ongoing violations of federal law…under the Ex Parte
Young doctrine.” Sonnleitner v. York, 304 F.3d 704, 717 (7th Cir. 2002). Felix does not cite
any authority establishing that one of these exceptions to Wisconsin’s sovereign
immunity applies here nor is this court aware of any such authority. To the contrary, a
similar complaint was dismissed under the Eleventh Amendment where a Wisconsin
citizen sought unemployment benefits from a Wisconsin state agency. Exum v.
Unemployment Ins., Bureau of Ben. Operation, No. 05C0843, 2006 WL 1049589, at *1 (E.D.
Wis. Apr. 18, 2006) (unpublished). Accordingly, Felix’s claim is constitutionally barred.
3
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No.
13) is granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff’s Motion for Discovery Date (ECF
No. 17) is denied as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff’s complaint and this action are
dismissed with prejudice. The clerk shall enter judgment accordingly.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin this 28th day of December, 2015.
WILLIAM E. DUFFIN
U.S. Magistrate Judge
4
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?