Williams v. Department of Children And Family Services State of Louisiana et al

MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim

E.D. La.March 30, 2017

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA GARLAND E. WILLIAMS * CIVIL ACTION * VS. * NO. 16-15866 “B” (2) * DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN * JUDGE LEMELLE AND FAMILY SERVICES, et al. * * MAG. JUDGE WILKINSON ************************************* MOTION TO DISMISS DEFENDANT MANDY PIERRE NOW INTO COURT , through undersigned counsel, comes defendant Mandy Pierre, an employee for the Louisiana Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS), who moves for dismissal of all federal claims against her pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for the reasons contained herein which are more fully explained in the accompanying memorandum in support thereof. 1. Plaintiff’s Complaints contain numerous references to various provisions of the United States Constitution and United State Code including the 14th Amendment (Equal Protection), 5th Amendment (Double Jeopardy), and deprivation of his civil rights under 42 U.S.C. §1983. It appears plaintiff seeks relief from this defendant in her official capacity for enforcement of lawful child support orders entered by state courts in Kansas and Louisiana. 2. Plaintiff’s suit is frivolous under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B) because it “lacks an arguable basis in law or fact.” Plaintiff’s suit should also be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B) Case 2:16-cv-15866-ILRL-JCW Document 34 Filed 03/30/17 Page 1 of 3 2 because it “fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted” and “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 3. In the alternative, plaintiff’s claims against this defendant should be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) for the failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 4. Plaintiff does not allege any facts regarding the movant whatsoever. Other than naming the movant as a defendant, the plaintiff did not mention her in the Complaints. 5. State officials sued in an official capacity for monetary relief are immune from suit in federal court pursuant to the Eleventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. 6. Even if this Honorable Court finds that plaintiff makes actionable claims against Mandy Pierre in her individual capacity, Ms. Pierre is entitled to qualified immunity. 7. The doctrine of Ex parte Young is inapplicable to plaintiff’s claims. Therefore, all federal claims against Mandy Pierre should be dismissed with prejudice. [Continued on next page]. Case 2:16-cv-15866-ILRL-JCW Document 34 Filed 03/30/17 Page 2 of 3 3 WHEREFORE , defendant Mandy Pierre, an employee for the Louisiana Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS), prays the insta t motion be granted, and that all federal claims against her be dismissed at plaintiff’s cost. Respectfully submitted, JEFF LANDRY ATTORNEY GENERAL s/Angela J. O’Brien BY _____________ MICHAEL C. KELLER (#20895) ANGELA J. O’BRIEN (#34010) (T.A.) Assistant Attorneys General Louisiana Department of Justice Litigation Division 1450 Poydras Street, Suite 900 New Orleans, Louisiana 70112 Telephone No.: (504) 599-1200 Facsimile No.: (504) 599-1212 E-Mail: KellerM@ag.state.la.us O’BrienA@ag.louisiana.gov CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on March 30, 2017, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system which will provide notice of electronic filing to all counsel of record and deposited a copy of same in the United States mail, properly addressed and first-class postage prepaid to all counsel of reco d. s/Angela J. O’Brien _______ ANGELA J. O’BRIEN Case 2:16-cv-15866-ILRL-JCW Document 34 Filed 03/30/17 Page 3 of 3 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA GARLAND E. WILLIAMS * CIVIL ACTION * VS. * NO. 16-15866 “B” (2) * DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN * JUDGE LEMELLE AND FAMILY SERVICES, et al. * * MAG. JUDGE WILKINSON ************************************* NOTICE OF SUBMISSION TO: Garland E. Williams 6032 Silver Oak Dr. Slidell, LA 70461 and All counsel of record via CM/ECF PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that the undersigned hereby submits the foregoing for decision by the Honorable Joseph C. Wilkinson, Jr., Chief Magistrate Judge, at the United States District Courthouse for the Eastern District of Louisiana, 500 Poydras Street, New Orleans, Louisiana, on the 19th day of April, 2017, at eleven o’clock in the morning (11:00 A.M.). Respectfully submitted, JEFF LANDRY ATTORNEY GENERAL s/Angela J. O’Brien BY _______________ MICHAEL C. KELLER (#20895) ANGELA J. O’BRIEN (#34010) (T.A.) Assistant Attorneys General Louisiana Department of Justice Litigation Division 1450 Poydras Street, Suite 900 New Orleans, Louisiana 70112 Telephone No.: (504) 599-1200 Facsimile No.: (504) 599-1212 E-Mail: KellerM@ag.state.la.us O’BrienA@ag.louisiana.gov Case 2:16-cv-15866-ILRL-JCW Document 34-1 Filed 03/30/17 Page 1 of 2 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on March 30, 2017, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system which will provide notice of electronic filing to all counsel of record and deposited a copy of same in the United States mail, properly addressed and first-class postage prepaid to all counsel of reco d. s/Angela J. O’Brien ____________ ANGELA J. O’BRIEN Case 2:16-cv-15866-ILRL-JCW Document 34-1 Filed 03/30/17 Page 2 of 2 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA GARLAND E. WILLIAMS * CIVIL ACTION * VS. * NO. 16-15866 “B” (2) * DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN * JUDGE LEMELLE AND FAMILY SERVICES, et al. * * MAG. JUDGE WILKINSON ************************************* MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS DEFENDANT MANDY PIERRE MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT, Defendant Mandy Pierre, an employee for the Louisiana Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS), herein explains why she is ntitled to dismissal of the federal claims against her with prejudice. I. Background The plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the State of Louisiana, through the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS),1 and Mandy Pierre, an employee of DCFS.2 The claims in plaintiff’s Complaint (R. Doc. 1) and Amended Final Complaint (R. Doc. 18) are difficult to discern as they contain conclusory allegations and unwarranted factual deductions related to lawful child support orders entered by state courts in Kansas and Louisiana. 1 The claims against this defendant are addressed in a separate motion to dismiss under 12(b)(1). 2 Plaintiff has filed at least three other federal complaints with similar allegations against various defendants. All of these cases resulted in dismissals or judgments in favor of the defendants. See Williams v. Kansas State Department of Social & Rehabilitation Service t al, Case# 2:14-cv-01663 (E.D. LA. 2014); Williams v. U.S. Dept. of Justice et al, Case # 2:16-cv000038 (E.D. La. 2015); and Williams v. U.S. Dept. of Justice et al, Case#1:15-cv-00111 (W.D. Kentucky 2015). Case 2:16-cv-15866-ILRL-JCW Document 34-2 Filed 03/30/17 Page 1 of 11 2 Apparently, plaintiff believes the United State Constitution affords him relief from the obligation to pay child support. Plaintiff’s Complaints contain numerous references to various provisions of the United States Constitution and United State Code; however, plaintiff essentially seeks monetary and declaratory relief under 42 U.S.C. §1983. Importantly, plaintiff fails to make any specific or individual allegations against defendant Mandy Pierre in either Complaint. Instead, all his allegations concern her official duties as “the named Instrumentality Agency Employee for the State of Louisiana’s Department Children and Family Service.” (See R. Doc. 1 and 18). II. Standard of review A. 28 U.S.C. §1915 “In furtherance of the Court’s continuing obligation to screen lawsuits like plaintiff’s that were filed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) and to dismiss those claims that are frivolous or malicious or fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted,” this Honorable Court should screen the original and amended Complaints filed by the plaintiff, Garland Williams. McSmith v. White, 07-cv-1179, 2007 WL 1521438 (E.D.La. 5/21/07) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)). A complaint is frivolous “if it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact.” Davis v. Scott, 157 F.3d 1003, 1005 (5th Cir.1998); Reeves v. Collins, 27 F.3d 174, 176 (5th Cir.1994). The law “accords judges not only the authority to dismiss a claim based on an indisputably meritless legal theory, but also the unusual power to pierce the veil of the complaint’s factual allegations and dismiss those claims whose factual contentions are clearly baseless.” Macias v. Raul A. (Unknown), Badge No. 153, 23 F.3d 94, 97 (5th Cir.1994) (quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989)). In this Case 2:16-cv-15866-ILRL-JCW Document 34-2 Filed 03/30/17 Page 2 of 11 3 case, plaintiff’s Complaints should be dismissed uner 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B) or under Rule 12(b)(1)&(6) because it fails to state any cognizable claim for which relief can be granted. B. 12(b)(1)&(6) Motions filed under Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allow a party to challenge the subject matter jurisdiction of thedistrict court to hear a case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). Article III standing is a jurisdictional requirement, therefore plaintiff’s lack of standing is properly raised on a Rule 12(b)(1) motion. See Pub. Citizen, Inc. v. Bomer, 274 F.3d 212, 217 (5th Cir. 2001), citing Sierra Club, Lone Star Chapter v. Cedar Point Oil Co. Inc., 73 F.3d 546, 555 n. 22 (5th Cir.1996). Furthermore, sovereign immunity deprives the court of subject matter jurisdiction and, therefore, is an issue properly brought in a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). Warnock v. Pecos County, Tex., 88 F.3d 341 (5th Cir. 1996). “The standard of review applicable to motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) is similar to that applicable to motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6)” except that the Rule 12(b)(1) standard permits the Court to consider a broader range of materials in considering its subject matter jurisdiction over the cause(s) in the suit. Thomas v. City of New Orleans, CIV.A. 12-896, 2012 WL 3150056 (E.D. La. Aug. 2, 2012) (citing Williams v. Wynne, 533 F.3d 360, 364-65 n. 2 (5th Cir. 2008)). On the other hand, consideration of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion is generally restricted to the face of the plaintiffs’ complaint. Because no materials beyond plaintiff’s original complaint are being relied upon in this motion, the jurisdictional review is limited to the face of plaintiff’s complaint and the Rule 12(b)(6) standard governs. Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a pleading contain “a short and plain statement” of the basis for the Court’s jurisdiction and of each claim showing that the Case 2:16-cv-15866-ILRL-JCW Document 34-2 Filed 03/30/17 Page 3 of 11 4 pleader is entitled to relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(A)(1), (A)(2). To satisfy Rule 8, the plaintiff must plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief thatis plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 167 L. Ed. 2d 9 9 (2007). “Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level, […] on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact).” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S. Ct. 1955 (internal citation and footnote omitted). As the Court held in Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929, the pleading standard Rule 8 announces do not require “detailed factual allegations,” but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation. Id., at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (citing Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286, 106 S.Ct. 2932, 92 L.Ed.2d 209 (1986)). A pleading that offers “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” 550 U.S., at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955. Nor does a complaint suffice if it tendrs “naked assertion[s]” devoid of “further factual enhancement.” Id., at 557, 127 S.Ct. 1955. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L. Ed. 2d 868 (2009). III. State officials sued in an official capacity for monetary relief are immune from suit in federal court pursuant to the Eleventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. “The Eleventh Amendment bars citizens' suits in federal court against States and their alter egos.” Champagne v. Jefferson Parish Sheriff's Office, 188 F.3d 312, 313 (5th Cir. 1999). It is also well established that even though a State is not named a party to the action, the suit may nonetheless be barred by the Eleventh Amendment. In Ford Motor Co. v. Department of Treasury, 323 U.S. 459, 65 S.Ct. 347, 89 L.Ed. 389 (1945), the Court said: ‘(W)hen the action is in essence one for the recovery of money from the state, the state is the real, substantial party in interest and is entitled to invoke its sovereign immunity from suit even Case 2:16-cv-15866-ILRL-JCW Document 34-2 Filed 03/30/17 Page 4 of 11 5 though individual officials are nominal defendants.’ Id , at 464, 65 S.Ct., at 350. Thus the rule has evolved that a suit by private parties seeking to impose a liability which must be paid from public funds in the state treasury is barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Great Northern Life Insurance Co. v. Read, [322 U.S. 47, 64 S.Ct. 873, 88 L.Ed. 1121 (1944)]; Kennecott Copper Corp. v. State Tax Comm'n, 327 U.S. 573, 66 S.Ct. 745, 90 L.Ed. 862 (1946). Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 663, 94 S. Ct. 1347, 1355-56, 39 L. Ed. 2d 662 (1974). Sovereign immunity is the rule but, the rule is subject to exceptions. States, for example, may consent to suit. Port Auth. Trans-Hudson Corp. v. Feeney, 495 U.S. 299, 304 (1990). Generally, the State of Louisiana has not waived its sovereign immunity for suits brought in federal court. Richardson v. Southern University, 118 F.3d 450, 453 (5th Cir. 1997); Delahoussaye v. City of New Iberia, 937 F.2d 144, 147 (5th Cir. 1991). The Louisiana Legislature clearly expresses that “[n]o suit against the state or a state agency or political subdivision shall be instituted in any court other than a Louisiana state court.” La. R.S. 13:5106(A). The Louisiana DCFS is an “arm of the State” for purposes of the State’s Eleventh Amendment immunity. Schannette v. Doxey, 2013 WL 4516041 (W.D. La., August 22, 2013) and Harmony Center, LLC v. Jindal, 2010 WL 4955168 (M.D. La., Nov. 30, 2010). Furthe , the Louisiana Legislature created a specific statute, La. Rev. Stat. 46:236.1.7, 3 applicable to DCFS 3 La. Rev. Stat. 46:236.1.7, Family and child support rograms, liability which provides in pertinent part: The district attorney, department, and their respectiv staff acting pursuant to this Subpart and R.S. 9:396(B) shall be immune from civil liability that otherwise might be incurred or imposed. Such immunity shall extend to participation in any judicial proceeding resulting from any actions under this Subpart but shall not limit or otherwise affect the liability of any person for damages resulting from such person’s gross negligence or from his reckless, wanton or intentional misconduct. Case 2:16-cv-15866-ILRL-JCW Document 34-2 Filed 03/30/17 Page 5 of 11 6 that provides for civil liability immunity for staff. Therefore, Louisiana’s sovereign immunity extends to DCFS employees when they are sued in their official capacities. Since federal courts lack jurisdiction over suits against state officials sued in an official capacity for monetary relief, this Honorable Court lacks jurisdiction over all claims for monetary relief against Mandy Pierre in her official capacity. In addition to the jurisdictional bar to suit described above, state officials in an official capacity are not “persons” capable of being sued for m netary relief under §1983. Will v. Michigan Dept. of St. Police, 491 U.S. 58, 109 S.Ct. 2304, 105 L.Ed.2d 45 (1989). This “long and clearly established Supreme Court precedent on the matter,” Fairley v. Stalder, 294 F. App'x 805, 808-09 (5th Cir. 2008), means that all “official capacity” claims for monetary relief under §1983 lack an arguable legal basis and, thus, subject to dismissal with prejudice as frivolous. See e.g.Cullum v. Texas Dep't of Criminal Justice, 375 F. App'x 417, 420 (5th Cir. 2010) (citing Will). See also Davenport v. Tanner, No. CIV.A. 13-505, 2014 WL 2041869, at *2 (E.D. La. May 16, 2014) (citing Will); Afzal v. Mouton, No. CIV.A. 14-2786, 2015 WL 2169529, at *2 (E.D. La. May 8, 2015) (discussing the State of Louisiana’s sovereign immunity and citing Will); Billiot v. Sullivan, No. CIV.A. 14-2748, 2015 WL 539723, at *2 (E.D. La. Feb. 9, 2015) (citing Will). All “official capacity” claims for monetary reli f, therefore, may be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction or pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1915; 1915A and/or 42 U.S.C. §1997e(c) because they are frivolous and seek relief from a defendant who is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit. See Tyson v. Tanner-Warden, No. CIV.A. 08-4445, 2009 WL 2899815, at *7 (E.D. La. Aug. 31, 2009). Case 2:16-cv-15866-ILRL-JCW Document 34-2 Filed 03/30/17 Page 6 of 11 7 IV. Assuming arguendo, plaintiff does make claims against Mandy Pierre in her individual capacity, Ms. Pierre is entitled to qualified immunity. The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231, 129 S.Ct. 808, 815 (2009) (quoting Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982)). Qualified immunity is “an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability [and] it is effectively lost if a case is erroneously permitted to go to trial.” Id (quoting Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526, 105 S.Ct. 2806, 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985)). The qualified immunity analysis is a two-pronged legal inquiry. This Honorable Court may consider either prong of the test to begin its analysis. Pearson, 555 U.S. at 236. If either prong is resolved in favor of the defendant, the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity. Correspondingly, concluding that the defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity “mandates a full Saucier inquiry.” Lytle v. Bexar County, Tex., 560 F.3d 404, 409 (5th Cir. 2009). First, a court must decide whether the facts that a plaintiff has alleged (see Fed. Rules Civ. Proc. 12(b)(6), (c)) or shown (see Rules 50, 56) make out a violation of a constitutional right. Second, if the plaintiff has satisfied this fir t step, the court must decide whether the right at issue was “clearly established” at the time of de endant’s alleged misconduct. Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right. Pearson, 555 U.S. at 232 (citing Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001)). “[P]rudence and […] precedent dictates that we examine each defendant’s entitlement to qualified immunity separately.” Jacobs v. W. Feliciana Sheriff's Dep't, 228 F.3d 388, 395 (5th Cir. 2000) (citing Case 2:16-cv-15866-ILRL-JCW Document 34-2 Filed 03/30/17 Page 7 of 11 8 Stewart v. Murphy, 174 F.3d 530, 537 (5th Cir.1999) (in a section 1983 action, the conduct of each defendant who has been sued in his individual capacity should be examined separately)). Here, there is no violation of a constitutional right. As the Sixth Circuit opined in N.E. v. Hedges, 391 F.3d 832, 836 (6th Cir. 2004) (emphasis added): … there are no judicial decisions recognizing a constitutional right of a man to terminate his duties of support under state law for a child that he has fathered, no matter how removed h may be emotionally from the child. Child support has long been a tax fathers have had to pay in Western civilization. For reasons of child welfare and social utility, if not for moral reasons, the biological relationship between a father and his offspring -- even if unwanted and unacknowledged -- remains constitutionally sufficient to support paternity tests and child support requirements. We do not have a system of government like ancient Sparta where male children are taken over arly in their lives by the state for military service. The biological parents remain responsible for their welfare. One of the ways the state enforces this duty is through paternity laws.4 Further, La. Rev. Stat. §§46:236.1.1 - 46:238 govern child support enforcement in Louisiana. La. Rev. Stat. §46:236.1.2 authorizes th DCFS to “enforce, collect, and distribute the support obligation owed by any person to his chld or children and to his spouse with whom the child is living if a support obligation has been stablished …”. Further, La. Rev. Stat. §46:236.10 authorizes use of the federal locator system for child support orders: A. The secretary of the Department of Children and Family Services shall create an automated state case registry of child support orders within the office of children and family services, child support enforcement section. B. The automated state case registry of child support orders, hereinafter referred to as the “state case registry”, shall contain records with respect to each case in which services ar being provided by the child support enforcement section and each 4 See also Howard v. Webb, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103902 (S.D. Ohio 10/15/2009). Case 2:16-cv-15866-ILRL-JCW Document 34-2 Filed 03/30/17 Page 8 of 11 9 support order established or modified in the state on or after October 1, 1998. C. (1) The state shall use the state case registry herein to extract information from, to share and compare information with, and to receive information from other databases and information comparison services. Such information comparison activities shall include the federal case registry of child support orders, federal parent locator servic s, temporary family assistance and Medicaid agencies, intrastate and interstate information comparisons, a d any other entities required by federal law. The claims in plaintiff’s Complaints are general allegations against DCFS for enforcing a child support order it is mandated by statute to enf rce. Plaintiff fails to show how Mandy Pierre violated a clearly established constitutional right. See Davis v. Self, 960 F. Supp. 2d 1276 (N.D. Ala. 2/25/2013). Therefore, the claims against Mandy Pierre should be dismissed on qualified immunity grounds. V. Plaintiff’s claims for declaratory relief are retro spective; therefore, the doctrine of Ex parte Young is inapplicable. There is a long and well-recognized exception to Eleventh Amendment immunity for suits against state officers seeking prospective equitable relief to end continuing violations of federal law under the doctrine of Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 28 S. Ct. 441, 52 L. Ed. 714 (1908). See Idaho v.Coeur d'Alene Tribe, 521 U.S. 261, 269 (19 7). However, Young is inapplicable here. Plaintiff seeks to “enact an Execute Stay pursuant Fed. R. Civ. P. 62.1(A)(B) of inferior district court Support Order” (R. Doc. 1 pg. 15) and requests a “sum certain just-due minimum forty-seven Million ($47,000,000.00) (R. Doc. 1 pg. 18)5. Plaintiff’s request for a stay of his lawful child support order is the functional equivalent of money damages since he alleges 5 In his Amended Complaint, plaintiff seeks One Billion and Four Hundred Million dollars. (Rec. Doc. 18 pg 21.) Case 2:16-cv-15866-ILRL-JCW Document 34-2 Filed 03/30/17 Page 9 of 11 10 enforcement of this order causes ongoing monetary loss and is the result of past breaches of legal duties by officials in Kansas and Louisiana.6 Therefore, plaintiff’s claims are barred by the Eleventh Amendment. VI. Conclusion There are no viable claims in plaintiff’s Complaints against Mandy Pierre. Therefore, considering the foregoing, all claims against Mandy Pierre, employee for the Louisiana Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS), should be dismissed with prejudice. Respectfully submitted, JEFF LANDRY ATTORNEY GENERAL s/Angela J. O’Brien BY ___ _______________ MICHAEL C. KELLER (#20895) ANGELA J. O’BRIEN (#34010) (T.A.) Assistant Attorneys General Louisiana Department of Justice Litigation Division 1450 Poydras Street, Suite 900 New Orleans, Louisiana 70112 Telephone No.: (504) 599-1200 Facsimile No.: (504) 599-1212 E-Mail: KellerM@ag.state.la.us O’BrienA@ag.louisiana.gov 6 See Smith v. State Dep’t of Human Res. Child Support Div., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85449 (S.D. Ala. 6/3/2016), “if the prospective relief sought is the equivalent of m ney damages, however, i.e, ‘it is measured in terms of monetary loss resulting from a past breach of a legal duty,’ Ex parte Young does not apply. Edelman, 415 U.S. at 669.” In Smith, the Court found Ex parte Young inapplicable for plaintiff’s claims for equitable r lief against the defendant employee of the child support enforcement division. Id. at 27. Case 2:16-cv-15866-ILRL-JCW Document 34-2 Filed 03/30/17 Page 10 of 11 11 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on March 30, 2017, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system which will provide notice of electronic filing to all counsel of record and deposited a copy of same in the United States mail, properly addressed and first-class postage prepaid to all counsel of reco d. s/Angela J. O’Brien _______ ANGELA J. O’BRIEN Case 2:16-cv-15866-ILRL-JCW Document 34-2 Filed 03/30/17 Page 11 of 11