Opinion
Case No. 02-4162-JAR
March 7, 2003
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS
Plaintiff filed a pro se complaint on October 21, 2002 against the State of Kansas alleging that he was "unlawfully confined for an overwhelming amount of time, depriving he [sic]; of life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, etc." Plaintiff seeks only "punitive damages." Defendant moves to dismiss (Doc. 10, 11), primarily on the grounds that it is immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution. (Doc. 10, 11.) It also argues that the action should be dismissed under the mandatory dismissal provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) that apply to in forma pauperis actions. (See Doc. 8.)
Doc. 1, ¶ 1.
Doc. 1, ¶ 4.
A pro se litigant's pleadings are to be construed liberally and held to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by lawyers. Thus, if a pro se plaintiff's complaint can reasonably be read "to state a valid claim on which the plaintiff could prevail, it [the court] should do so despite the plaintiff's failure to cite proper legal authority, his confusion of various legal theories, his poor syntax and sentence construction, or his unfamiliarity with pleading requirements." However, it is not "the proper function of the district court to assume the role of advocate for the pro se litigant." For that reason, the court should not "construct arguments or theories for the plaintiff in the absence of any discussion of those issues," nor should it "supply additional factual allegations to round out a plaintiff's complaint or construct a legal theory on plaintiff's behalf." ELEVENTH AMENDMENT IMMUNITY
Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991).
Id.
Id.
Drake v. City of Fort Collins, 927 F.2d 1156, 1159 (10th Cir. 1991).
Whitney v. State of New Mexico, 113 F.3d 1170, 1173-74 (10th Cir. 1997).
The Eleventh Amendment states that "[t]he judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State." The Supreme Court has repeatedly explained that the amendment confirms the historically-rooted understanding of sovereign immunity, which is that federal jurisdiction over suits against unconsenting states — even by its own citizen — "was not contemplated by the Constitution."
Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44, 54 (1996) (quoting Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1, 15 (1890)).
It is settled law that under the Eleventh Amendment, states are immune from suit unless, 1) the state consents to suit, or 2) Congress validly abrogates the states' immunity. In this case, the Plaintiff's claim most resembles a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, given that he refers to "constitutional violations" in his complaint. The State of Kansas does not consent to suit under this statute.
E.g., id. at 54-55; Nelson v. Geringer, 295 F.3d 1082, 1096 (10th Cir. 2002.
The Court has determined that Congress may not abrogate state immunity for section 1983 claims under its Fourteenth Amendment authority. Moreover, a state is not a "person" for purposes of section 1983. As a result, the Eleventh Amendment bars suits under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the states. The Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is granted on the ground that the Eleventh Amendment bars suit against the State of Kansas.
Will v. Michigan Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 63 (1989); Nelson, 295 F.3d at 1096 (citing Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332 (1979)).
Will, 491 U.S. at 64-67; accord Stidham v. Peace Officer Stds Training, 265 F.3d 1144, 1156 (10th Cir. 2001); McLaughlin v. Bd. of Trustees of State Colleges, 215 F.3d 1168, 1172 (10th Cir. 2000). See also Harris v. Champion, 51 F.3d 901, 905-06 (10th Cir. 1995) (explaining that a state or state agency is not a person under section 1983 except to the extent that the plaintiff sues for prospective injunctive relief only).
DISMISSAL UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)
Section 1915 applies to actions, such as this, that are filed in forma pauperis. Subsection (e)(2) provides for dismissal of such actions if the court determines that "(B) the action or appeal . . . (iii) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief." Another ground for dismissal is if the court determines that the action is frivolous.
Id. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii) squarely applies to this case. As explained, the State of Kansas is immune from this suit under the Eleventh Amendment. The statute provides for dismissal under exactly this scenario. Given that the defendant in this case is immune from a suit for monetary damages, it is unnecessary to determine if the suit is frivolous under the statute.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant's motion to dismiss is GRANTED and this action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED.