Hall v. Idaho Department of Fish and Game et al, No. 2:2011cv00622 - Document 11 (D. Idaho 2012)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER granting 4 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. The Court will therefore grant Defendants request to dismiss the Section 1983 claims against the Department and Bogar and Soumas in their official capacities. The claims against Bogar and Soumas in their individual capacities shall remain. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by cjm)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO ROLAND HALL, Case No. 2:11-cv-00622-BLW Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER v. IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME; RICK BOGAR, in his official and individual capacities; and, ROBERT SOUMAS, in his official and individual capacities, Defendants. INTRODUCTION Before the Court is Defendants Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Rick Bogar, and Robert Soumas s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 4). The Court has reviewed the record and determined that oral argument will not aid the decisional process. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will grant Defendants Motion. ANALYSIS Plaintiff Roland Hall has sued both the Idaho Department of Fish and Game, as well as its two employees, Rick Bogar and Robert Soumas, both in their official and MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 1 individual capacities. Defendants argue that the Eleventh Amendment bars all 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims against the Department and Bogar and Soumas in their official capacities. The Court agrees. The U.S. Supreme Court held in Will v. Michigan Department of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989) that the Eleventh Amendment bars § 1983 suits against a state and its employees in their official capacities. The Court will therefore grant Defendants request to dismiss the Section 1983 claims against the Department and Bogar and Soumas in their official capacities. The claims against Bogar and Soumas in their individual capacities shall remain.1 ORDER IT IS ORDERED that Defendants Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 4) is GRANTED. DATED: February 6, 2012 _________________________ B. Lynn Winmill Chief Judge United States District Court 1 The Court also notes that Hall failed to respond. Pursuant to Idaho's Local Civil Rules, Hall s failure to respond to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss arguably represents Plaintiffs' consent to the relief Defendants now seek. But because the Court has already considered the motion on its merits, it will not consider this issue. MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
