Amir El v. Department of Health and Hospitals State of Louisiana, No. 2:2016cv06545 - Document 18 (E.D. La. 2016)
Court Description: ORDER AND REASONS granting 14 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. Party Department of Health and Hospitals State of Louisiana (Vital Records) dismissed; Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. Party Department of Health and Hospitals State of Louisiana (Vital Records) dismissed; Motion to Dismiss Case. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 12/1/2016. (cg)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Amir El v. Department of Health and Hospitals State of Louisiana Doc. 18 U N ITED S TATES D ISTRICT COU RT EASTERN D ISTRICT OF LOU ISIAN A KIN G SAN D I AMIR EL, Plain tiff CIVIL ACTION VERSU S N O. 16 -6 54 5 D EPARTMEN T OF H EALTH AN D H OSPITALS, STATE OF LOU ISIAN A D e fe n d an t SECTION : “E” ORD ER AN D REAS ON S Before the Court is an am ended m otion to dism iss, filed by Defendant, Louisiana Departm ent of Health (“LDH”), 1 pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 2 Plaintiff, King Sandi Am ir El, did not file an opposition to Defendant’s m otion. BACKGROU N D On May 5, 20 16, Plain tiff filed his initial com plaint pro se against the LDH. 3 On J une 24, 20 16, the LDH filed its Motion to Dism iss and, Alternatively, Motion for a More Definitive Statem ent. 4 Plaintiff sought leave of court to file an am ended com plaint, which he was granted on August 11, 20 16. 5 On October 11, 20 16, the Defendant filed its Am ended Motion to Dism iss. 6 Plaintiff did not file an opposition to the Defendant’s m otion to dism iss. In his am ended com plaint, Plaintiff, King Sandi Am ir El, alleges that sin ce Decem ber 18, 20 15, he has requested the Defendant m ake corrections to his birth 1 Pursuant to legislation passed by the Louisiana Legislature in its 20 16 regular session, the Louisiana Departm ent of Health and Hospitals is now known as the Louisiana Departm ent of Health. 2 R. Doc. 14. 3 R. Doc. 1. 4 R. Doc. 5. 5 R. Doc. 9. 6 R. Doc. 14. Dockets.Justia.com certificate. 7 Plaintiff appears to seek an injunction or an order requiring the Defen dant to issue him an am ended birth certificate with requested changes to his nam e, race, and nationality. 8 The Defendant argues the Plaintiff’s claim s should be dism issed pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 9 LEGAL STAN D ARD “Federal courts are courts of lim ited jurisdiction; without jurisdiction conferred by statute, they lack the power to adjudicate claim s.”10 A m otion to dism iss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) challenges a federal court’s subject-m atter jurisdiction. 11 Under Rule 12(b)(1), “[a] case is properly dism issed for lack of subject m atter jurisdiction when the court lacks the statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate the case.”12 “Lack of subject-m atter jurisdiction m ay be found in the com plaint alone, the com plaint supplem ented by the undisputed facts as evidenced in the record, or the com plaint supplem ented by the undisputed facts plus the court’s resolution of the disputed facts.”13 “When, as here, grounds for dism issal m ay exist under both Rule 12(b)(1) and Rule 12(b)(6), the Court should, if necessary, dism iss only under the form er without reaching the question of failure to state a claim .”14 7 R. Doc. 10 , at 9. See R. Doc. 10 . Plaintiff requests his nam e be changed to King Sandi Am ir El, “without any Better Known As (B.k.a.) or Also Known As (A.k.a.),” that his “race is Asiatic,” and that his nationality is “Moorish Am erican.” Id. at 11-12. 9 R. Doc. 14. Defendant also states it “has processed Plaintiff’s birth certificate am endm ent request and, in com pliance with La. R.S. 40 :34(D) and the nam e chan ge judgm ent, provided Plaintiff with an am ended birth certificate reflecting the requested nam e change.” R. Doc. 14-1, at 2. 10 In re FEMA Trailer Form aldehy de Products Liab. Litig. (Mississippi Plaintiffs), 668 F.3d 281, 286 (5th Cir. 20 12). 11 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). 12 Hom e Builders Ass’n of Miss., Inc. v. City of Madison, Miss., 143 F.3d 10 0 6, 10 10 (5th Cir. 1998) (internal quotation m arks and citation om itted). 13 In re FEMA, 668 F.3d at 287. 14 Valdery v. Louisiana W orkforce Com m ’n , No. CIV.A. 15-0 1547, 20 15 WL 530 7390 , at *1 (E.D. La. Sept. 10 , 20 15). 8 AN ALYSIS The Court begins by noting its cognizance of Plaintiff’s pro se status. “It is wellestablished that ‘pro se com plaints are held to less stringent standards than form al pleadings drafted by lawyers.’”15 “Despite [the] general willingness to construe pro se filings liberally, [the courts] still require pro se parties to fundam entally ‘abide by the rules that govern the federal courts.’”16 Am ong other requirem ents, Plaintiffs proceeding pro se “m ust properly plead sufficient facts that, when liberally construed, state a plausible claim to relief, serve defendants, [and] obey discovery orders.”17 With this m axim in m in d, the Court granted the Plaintiff’s request for leave to file an am ended com plaint. 18 Even construing the am ended com plaint liberally, it is clear this Court lacks jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s com plaint. The Eleventh Am endm ent serves as a jurisdiction al bar depriving federal courts of the jurisdiction to adjudicate claim s against a state. 19 Both federal and state law claim s are barred from being asserted against a state in a federal court. 20 “Though the language of the Eleventh Am endm ent does not specifically address suits against the State by its own citizens, the Suprem e Court has consistently held that an unconsenting State is im m une from suits brought in federal court by her own citizens as well as citizens of other states.”21 Furtherm ore, the Eleventh Am endm ent “extends to actions against state agencies or entities that are classified as ‘arm s of the state.’”22 “When 15 Tay lor v. Books A Million, Inc., 296 F.3d 376, 378 (5th Cir. 20 0 2) (quoting Miller v. Stanm ore, 636 F.2d 986, 98 8 (5th Cir. 1981)). 16 E.E.O.C. v. Sim baki, Ltd., 767 F.3d 475, 484 (5th Cir. 20 14), as revised (Sept. 18, 20 14) (quotin g Frazier v. W ells Fargo Bank, N .A., 541 F. App’x 419, 421 (5th Cir. 20 13) (internal quotation m arks om itted)). 17 Id. (citations om itted). 18 R. Doc. 9. 19 Union Pac. R. Co. v. La. Pub. Serv . Com m ’n, 662 F.3d 336, 340 (5th Cir. 20 11). 20 Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderm an , 465 U.S. 89, 119-21 (1984). 21 Id. (internal quotation m arks om itted) (citin g Edelm an v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 662– 63 (1974)). 22 Id. (citing Regents of the Univ. of Ca. v. John Doe, 519 U.S. 425, 429 (1997); Perez v. Region 20 Educ. Serv. Ctr., 30 7 F.3d 318, 326 (5th Cir. 20 0 2)). a state agency is nam ed defendant, the Eleventh Am endm ent bars suits for both m oney dam ages and injunctive relief unless the state has waived its im m unity.”23 This rule applies to state agencies such as the Louisiana Departm ent of Health. 24 The State of Louisiana has not waived its sovereign im m unity under the Eleventh Am endm ent such that it has consented to be sued in federal court. In fact, Louisiana explicitly m aintain s its sovereign im m unity by statute. 25 As a result, because Plaintiff’s suit is barred by Eleventh Am endm ent sovereign im m unity, his claim m ust be dism issed. 26 LEAVE TO AMEN D The Court should “freely give” leave to am end “when justice so requires.”27 Ordin arily, “a court should grant a pro se party every reasonable opportunity to am end.”28 “When it is apparent, however, that am endm ent will be futile, dism issal without leave to am end is appropriate.”29 The Plaintiff has already been granted leave to file an am en ded com plaint following the filing of Defendant’s first m otion to dism iss. 30 In its first m otion 23 Valdery , 20 15 WL 530 7390 , at *1 (citing Cozzo v. Tan gipahoa Parish Counsel-President Gov’t, 279 F.3d 273, 280 -81 (5th 24 See Advocacy Ctr. for Elderly & Disabled v. Louisiana Dep’t of Health & Hosps., 731 F. Supp. 2d 583, 589 n .20 (E.D. La. 20 10 ) (“The Fifth Circuit has determ ined that the Departm ent of Health and Hospital’s predecessor was an alter ego of the State of Louisiana, and was thus entitled to sovereign im m un ity.” (citing Darlak v. Bobear, 8 14 F.2d 10 55, 10 60 (5th Cir. 1987)). As previously explained, pursuant to legislation passed by the Louisiana Legislature in its 20 16 regular session, the Louisiana Departm ent of Health and Hospitals is now known as the Louisiana Departm ent of Health. 25 LA. R EV. STAT. § 13:510 6 (“No suit against the state or a state agency or political subdivision shall be instituted in any court other than a Louisiana state court.”). See also Citrano v. Allen Correctional Ctr., 891 F. Supp. 312, 320 (W.D. La. 1995) (“The State of Louisiana has waived sovereign im m unity in tort contract suits but it has not waived its im m un ity under the Eleventh Am endm ent from suit in federal court.”). 26 As this Court does not have jurisdiction to hear this case, the Court need not, and cannot, address the Defendant’s 12(b)(6) claim s. See Valdery , 20 15 WL 530 7390 , at *2. 27 Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2); Leal v. McHugh, 731 F.3d 40 5, 417 (5th Cir. 20 13). 28 Hale v. King, 642 F.3d 492, 50 3 n .36 (5th Cir. 20 11) (quoting Pena v. United States, 157 F.3d 98 4, 987 n.3 (5th Cir. 1988 )). 29 Valdery , 20 15 WL 530 7390 , at *2 (citing Form an v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); Sm ith v. EMC Corp., 393 F.3d 590 , 595 (5th Cir. 20 0 4)). 30 R. Doc. 9. to dism iss, the Defendant raises the sam e issues regarding the Court’s lack of subject m atter jurisdiction pursuant to the Eleventh Am endm ent and the Plaintiff has failed to address these concern s in his am ended com plaint. As is such, the Court finds it is apparent from the record in this case that allowing further am endm ent will be futile. Accordingly, leave to file a second am ended com plaint is not warranted. 31 CON CLU SION For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORD ERED that the Defendant’s 12(b)(1) m otion to dism iss 32 is GRAN TED . As such, the Plaintiff’s claim s asserted against the Louisiana Departm ent of Health is D ISMISSED W ITH PREJU D ICE. N e w Orle a n s , Lo u is ian a, th is 1s t d ay o f D e ce m be r, 2 0 16 . _____________ __________________ SU SIE MORGAN U N ITED S TATES D ISTRICT J U D GE 31 The Plaintiff did not request leave to file a second am ended com plaint and has not responded to the Defendant’s am ended m otion to dism iss. 32 R. Doc. 14.
]]>
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.
