Opinion
No. 96-4249-CV-C-66BA
December 9, 1999
ORDER
A number of pending motions are before the court, including defendant's motion of August 16, 1999, for judgment on the pleadings. Defendant asserts that Alsbrook v. City of Maumelle, 184 F.3d 999 (8th Cir. 1999), petition for cert. filed 60 U.S.L.W. 3164 (U.S. Sept. 8, 1999) (No. 99-423), requires dismissal of this case based on Eleventh Amendment immunity and the immunity inherent in the structure of the Constitution. Plaintiffs oppose dismissal and request the court to continue the stay of proceedings.
The standard for judgment on the pleadings is a strict one. The movant must clearly establish that there are no material issues of fact and judgment is appropriate as a matter of law. Lion Oil Co., Inc. v. Tosco Corp., 90 F.3d 268, 270 (8th Cir. 1996); National Car Rental System, Inc. v. Computer Associates Intern., Inc., 991 F.2d 426, 428 (8th Cir. 1993). The court accepts as true the facts pled by the nonmoving party and draws all reasonable inferences from the pleadings in that party's favor. Id.
Material issues of fact are not presently in dispute. At issue is the legal question of whether an ADA claim can be maintained against the state or a state agency. In the Eighth Circuit, the answer is no. In Alsbrook v. City of Maumelle, the Eighth Circuit held "the extension of Title II of the ADA to the states was not a proper exercise of Congress's power under section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Consequently, there is no valid abrogation of . . . Eleventh Amendment immunity from private suit in federal court and the district court" lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Alsbrook v. City of Maumelle, 184 F.3d at 1010. See also Debose v. Nebraska, 186 F.3d 1087 (8th Cir. 1999) (applying principles of Alsbrook to Title I of the ADA). Given the holding in Alsbrook v. City of Maumelle, this court is compelled to dismiss plaintiffs' ADA claim. When the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, dismissal is mandated by Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3) and a further stay of proceedings is not authorized.
Plaintiffs assert they have sued the Director of the Department of Revenue, rather than the State of Missouri. They argue their request for declaratory and prospective injunctive relief under the ADA is not barred by the Eleventh Amendment because of the exception found in Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 155-56 (1908). Plaintiffs' position is not persuasive. Based upon the holding in Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 (1996), the doctrine of Ex parte Young does not apply to suits seeking to enforce a statute that provides exclusive remedies within the statute. The ADA contains exclusive remedies. See Alsbrook v. City of Maumelle, 184 F.3d at 1011.
Furthermore, in Alsbrook v. City of Maumelle, the Eighth Circuit held that Congress lacked power to apply the ADA to the states. Prospective injunctive relief directed toward a state official to enforce a provision of the ADA would, in essence, have this court doing what the Eighth Circuit has held Congress lacked the power to do. If the ADA does not apply to the states, this court may not enter prospective relief based upon the statute to enforce its provisions. For these reasons, it is
ORDERED that defendant's motion of August 16, 1999, for judgment on the pleadings is granted and this case is dismissed [122]. It is further ORDERED that all other pending motions are denied, without prejudice [103, 125, 126, 127, 129].