Azubuko v. State of Louisiana

Full title: CHUKWUMA E. AZUBUKO v. STATE OF LOUISIANA

Court: United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana

Date published: Oct 18, 2004

Civil Action No. 04-1768, Section: I/2 (E.D. La. Oct. 18, 2004)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 04-1768, Section: I/2.

October 18, 2004

ORDER AND REASONS

LANCE AFRICK, Magistrate Judge

This matter is before the Court pursuant to a motion, filed on behalf of defendant, the State of Louisiana, seeking dismissal of plaintiff's claims pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) and (b)(6) on the ground of Eleventh Amendment immunity. For the following reasons, defendant's motion to dismiss is GRANTED.

BACKGROUND

On July 14, 2004, plaintiff, Chukwuma E. Azubuko, filed a complaint pro se naming the State of Louisiana as the sole defendant.¹ Plaintiff alleges that the State of Louisiana violated several federal and state laws by permitting LaSalle University, located in Mandeville, Louisiana ("LaSalle"), to award a bachelor of science degree in law ("LL.B") when LaSalle was not "chartered or authorized" by the State of Louisiana.² According to the complaint, plaintiff paid the tuition and fees and completed the course work required to obtain an "LL.B," which allegedly is a "comprehensive law degree," from LaSalle.³ Plaintiff contends that such a degree should have authorized the holder of the degree to sit for the bar examination in Louisiana and practice law in Louisiana.

Plaintiff alleges that the State abused its police power, impermissibly interfered with plaintiff's economic relations and denied plaintiff equal protection of the law, all in contravention of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, by refusing to recognize the "LL.B" degree from LaSalle, by refusing to permit plaintiff to practice law in Louisiana, and by failing to pass legislation recognizing a law degree issued by an entity that is not accredited by the American Bar Association.⁴ Plaintiff asserts causes of action for violations of civil rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1982, and 1985(3) and causes of action pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §§ 1, 2, and 45 for violations of "the anti-trust law."⁵ Additionally, plaintiff alleges state law causes of action for ordinary negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent infliction of emotional distress.⁶ Plaintiff seeks ten million dollars in compensatory and punitive damages, as well as a permanent injunction requiring the State to permit the students holding an "LL.B" from LaSalle to practice law in Louisiana.⁷

4 See id., ¶¶ 4-12.

5 Id., ¶ 9.

6 Id., ¶ 10.

7 Id., at pp. 4-5.

On August 27, 2004, the State filed the instant motion pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) and (b)(6) to dismiss plaintiff's claims on the ground of Eleventh Amendment immunity.⁸

8 Rec. Doc. No. 7.

LAW AND ANALYSIS

I. Standard of Review on a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction

A motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction should be granted "only if it appears certain that the plaintiff cannot prove any set of facts in support of his claim that would entitle plaintiff to relief." Ramming v. United States, 281 F.3d 158, 161 (5^th Cir. 2001). To assess whether subject matter jurisdiction exists, this Court may look to the complaint and the undisputed facts in the record. See id. When analyzing the complaint, this Court will take the allegations in the complaint as true. Sawar Partnership v. United States, 67 F.3d 567, 569 (5^th Cir. 1995). Because the burden of proof on a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is on the party asserting jurisdiction, Ramming, 281 F.3d at 161, citing McDaniel v. United States, 899 F.Supp. 305, 307 (E.D. Tex. 1995), plaintiff "constantly bears the burden of proof that jurisdiction does in fact exist." See id., citing Menchaca v. Chrysler Credit Corp., 613 F.2d 507, 511 (5^th Cir. 1980).

II. Eleventh Amendment Immunity

The Eleventh Amendment of the United States Constitution provides:

The 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 sovereign immunity recognized by the Eleventh Amendment is jurisdictional. Cozzo v. Tangipahoa Parish, 279 F.3d 273, 280 (5th Cir. 2002). The Supreme Court has interpreted this amendment to bar citizens from suing their own states as well as other states. United States v. Texas Tech Univ., 171 F.3d 279, 289 (5th Cir. 1999), citing Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1, 10 S.Ct. 504, 33 L.Ed. 842 (1890). The Eleventh Amendment bars a lawsuit against a state "for both money damages and injunctive relief unless the state has waived its immunity." Cozzo, 279 F.3d at 280-81; see also Pennhurst State Sch. and Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100, 89 S.Ct. 900, 908, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984) (holding that the jurisdictional bar of the Eleventh Amendment "applies regardless of the nature of the relief sought"); Briggs v. Mississippi, 331 F.3d 499, 503 (5th Cir. 2003) ("[T]he Eleventh Amendment bars suit against a state or state entity, as opposed to a state official, regardless of whether money damages or injunctive relief is sought. . . .") (internal quotation and citation omitted). By statute, Louisiana has explicitly refused to waive its sovereign immunity with respect to lawsuits brought in federal court. See id.; La.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 13:5106(A).⁹ "It is clear, of course, that in the absence of consent a suit in which the State or one of its agencies or departments is named as the defendant is proscribed by the Eleventh Amendment." Pennhurst, 465 U.S. at 100, 104 S. Ct. at 908, citing Florida Department of Health v. Florida Nursing Home Assn., 450 U.S. 147, 101 S.Ct. 1032, 67 L.Ed.2d 132 (1981) ( per curiam); Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781, 98 S.Ct. 3057, 57 L.Ed.2d 1114 (1978) ( per curiam).

9 La.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 13:5106(A) provides:

No suit against the state or a state agency or political subdivision shall be instituted in any court other than a Louisiana state court.

Louisiana's waiver of its sovereign immunity in its own courts does not bear on the question of whether this Court has the judicial power to exercise jurisdiction over this action. The United States Supreme Court "consistently has held that a State's waiver of sovereign immunity in its own courts is not a waiver of the Eleventh Amendment immunity in the federal courts." Pennhurst, 465 U.S. at 100, 104 S.Ct. at 908.

In support of plaintiff's opposition to the State's motion, plaintiff attaches excerpts from an unidentified treatise discussing the doctrine of Ex Parte Young. Pursuant to the doctrine of Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 28 S. Ct. 441, 52 L.Ed.2d 714 (1908), the Eleventh Amendment does not preclude lawsuits in federal court against a state official in his or her official capacity seeking prospective relief for violations of federal law because such lawsuits are not treated as actions against the state. Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 n. 10, 109 S.Ct. 2304, 2312 n. 10, 105 L.Ed.2d 45 (1989); Wallace v. Texas Tech Univ., 80 F.3d 1042, 1047 n. 3 (5^th Cir. 1996). That doctrine is not applicable in this case. The sole defendant in this action is the State of Louisiana. Plaintiff's lawsuit against the State of Louisiana is precluded by the Eleventh Amendment and this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action.

Accordingly, and for the above and foregoing reasons,

IT IS ORDERED that the motion to dismiss filed on behalf of defendant, the State of Louisiana, is GRANTED.