# WROBEL v. STATE OF MAINE

> District Court, D. Maine · March 26, 2021

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10210919

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, D. Maine
- **Decided:** March 26, 2021
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10210919

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
PAUL WROBEL, )
)
Plaintiff )
)
v. ) 1:20-cv-00430-JDL
)
STATE OF MAINE, et al., )
)
)
Defendants )

RECOMMENDED DECISION ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS

Plaintiff asserts various claims against the State of Maine and Maine Attorney
General Aaron M. Frey based on the alleged actions of several current or former federal
officials. Defendants have moved to dismiss the complaint. (Motion, ECF No. 12.)
Following a review of Plaintiff’s complaint and after consideration of the parties’
submissions, I recommend the Court grant Defendants’ motion.
BACKGROUND
The following facts are drawn from Plaintiff’s complaint, including the attached
exhibits, and Plaintiff’s subsequent pleadings. See Waterman v. White Interior Sols., No.
2:19-cv-00032-JDL, 2019 WL 5764661, at *2 (D. Me. Nov. 5, 2019) (stating that a court
may “consider other filings by a self-represented plaintiff, ‘including [the] response to the
motion to dismiss, to understand the nature and basis of [his] claims’” (quoting Wall v.
Dion, 257 F. Supp. 2d 316, 318 (D. Me. 2003)). A plaintiff’s factual allegations are
generally deemed true when evaluating a motion to dismiss. See McKee v. Cosby, 874
F.3d 54, 59 (1st Cir. 2017) (considering a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6));
Merlonghi v. United States, 620 F.3d 50, 54 (1st Cir. 2010) (considering a motion to
dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1)).

Plaintiff claims that certain former or current federal officials committed treason
and trespassed on his constitutional rights. (Complaint ¶¶ 8-14, 16, 18.) In support of his
claims, Plaintiff cites several agreements and select portions of the U.S. Constitution, the
Constitution of Maine, and the New Hampshire Constitution and Bill of Rights; he
“demands his ‘natural right’ and his ‘sacred rights’ under the coarse [sic] of the common

law,” and seeks the “redress of wrongs done to him and of the grievances suffered.” (Id.
¶¶ 1, 3, 31-39.) He also demands the enactment of the “National Security and Reformation
Act.” (Id. ¶¶ 39, 41-42.) In addition, Plaintiff demands that the voting age for state
elections be raised to 21 and that all state governors limit the use of voting by mail. (Id. ¶¶
44-45.) Plaintiff further asks that some of the individuals be criminally prosecuted. (Id. ¶¶

9, 16.)
DISCUSSION
Defendants have moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction (Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1)) and based on Plaintiff’s alleged
failure to assert facts to support an actionable claim (Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

12(b)(6)). Defendants also argue that the Eleventh Amendment bars the relief sought by
Plaintiff.
A party may move to dismiss a claim for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Fed.
R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). “A motion to dismiss an action under Rule 12(b)(1) . . . raises the
fundamental question whether the federal district court has subject matter jurisdiction over
the action before it.” United States v. Lahey Clinic Hosp., Inc., 399 F.3d 1, 8 n.6 (1st Cir.
2005) (quotation marks omitted). On such a motion, the court must “credit the plaintiff’s

well-pled factual allegations and draw all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff’s favor.”
Merlonghi, 620 F.3d at 54.
Federal district courts “have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under
the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331.1 The jurisdiction
of the federal courts is limited to “Cases” and “Controversies.” Hochendoner v. Genzyme

Corp., 823 F.3d 724, 730 (1st Cir. 2016) (quoting U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 1). The
limitation reflects “the proper – and properly limited – role of the courts in a democratic
society.” Id. (quoting Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 498 (1975)).
Plaintiff seeks to assert a claim to raise the voting age in state elections and to limit
voting by mail. The claims are not justiciable because they raise matters that are

“commit[ted] … to a coordinate political department,” “lack … judicially discoverable and
manageable standards for resolving” them, and cannot be decided “without an initial policy
determination of a kind clearly for nonjudicial discretion.” Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186,
217 (1962).2

1 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, federal district courts also have original jurisdiction “where the matter in
controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000 … and is between citizens of different States.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332(a)(1). Federal courts, however, do not have diversity jurisdiction where a state is a party. U.S.I.
Props. Corp. v. M.D. Constr. Co., 230 F.3d 489, 500 (1st Cir. 2000); Hoffman v. Connecticut, 671 F. Supp.
2d 166, 169 n.3 (D. Me. Sept. 18, 2009).

2 Plaintiff also lacks standing to assert any potential claims based on the alleged facts regarding actions
demanded to be taken by the state elected officials (e.g., allegation that Governor should prohibit mail-in
ballots), insofar as the allegations reflect grievances concerning matters committed to the representative
A party may also seek dismissal of a claim for “failure to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). In reviewing a motion to dismiss under
Rule 12(b)(6), a court “must evaluate whether the complaint adequately pleads facts that

‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Guilfoile v. Shields, 913 F.3d 178, 186
(1st Cir. 2019) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). Here,
Plaintiff has not alleged any facts to suggest the state defendants engaged in any of the
conduct about which he complains and thus he has not asserted an actionable claim against
the named defendants.3

Even if Plaintiff’s complaint could be construed to assert an otherwise actionable
claim against Defendants, the State of Maine is immune from suit in this Court under the
Eleventh Amendment of the United States Constitution. The State of Maine has immunity
under the Eleventh Amendment against suits brought by citizens in federal court, regardless
of the form of relief requested. Poirier v. Mass. Dep’t of Corr., 558 F.3d 92, 97 n. 6 (1st

Cir. 2009) (“A plaintiff may seek prospective injunctive relief against a state official, but

branches of government. Chardon – Dubos v. United States, 273 Fed. App’x 5 (1st Cir. 2008) (citing FEC
v. Akins, 524 U.S. 11, 24 (1998), and Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Americans United for Separation of
Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 474 – 75 (1982)); see also Do-Nguyen v. Clinton, 100 F. Supp. 2d
1241, 1245 – 47 (S.D. Cal. 2000) (dismissing claims related to executive policy, citing plaintiff’s lack of
standing to assert claims involving generalized grievances and matters “more appropriately addressed in
the representative branches” and, in the alternative, based on nonjusticiability of political question);
Weinstein v. Trump, No. 1:17-cv-01018, 2017 WL 6544635, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 21, 2017) (dismissing
action to enforce alleged promise or pledge to address conflicts of interest).

3 To the extent Plaintiff seeks to institute criminal proceedings against certain individuals, Plaintiff does
not have standing to pursue criminal charges against the individuals, or to demand that Defendants institute
such proceedings. United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 693 (1974) (“the Executive Branch has exclusive
authority and absolute discretion to decide whether to prosecute a case”); Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410
U.S. 614, 619 (1973) (private citizens lack a judicially cognizable interest in the criminal prosecution of
another); Cok v. Cosentino, 876 F.2d 1, 2 (1st Cir. 1989); Briand v. Lavigne, 223 F. Supp. 2d 241, 251 (D.
Me. 2002).
may not obtain such relief against a state or its agency because of the sovereign immunity
bar of the Eleventh Amendment.”). Plaintiff, therefore, cannot prevail in federal court on
federal claims asserted against the State, absent waiver of immunity. 4 Also, “[a]bsent an

explicit waiver from the state, the Eleventh Amendment bars official capacity suits against
state actors in federal court unless the suit seeks prospective injunctive relief.” Caisse v.
Dubois, 346 F.3d 213, 218 (1st Cir. 2003); see Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908).
Plaintiff has not alleged any facts that would support a finding of waiver. Plaintiff,
therefore, cannot prevail in federal court on federal claims asserted against the State of

Maine.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing analysis, I recommend the Court grant Defendants’ motion
to dismiss.
NOTICE

A party may file objections to those specified portions of a magistrate
judge’s report or proposed findings or recommended decisions entered
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) for which de novo review by the district
court is sought, together with a supporting memorandum, within fourteen
(14) days of being served with a copy thereof. A responsive memorandum
shall be filed within fourteen (14) days after the filing of the objection.

4 Eleventh Amendment immunity may be waived by a state in some circumstances. For example, states
that participate in certain federal programs through which they accept federal funds may by such conduct
waive immunity under the Eleventh Amendment to causes of action expressly authorized by Congress in
the context of such programs. See, e.g., Lebron v. Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, 770 F.3d 25, 32 (1st Cir.
2014) (providing as examples the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act and the Rehabilitation
Act). See also Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 673 (1974) (“The mere fact that a State participates in a
program through which the Federal Government provides assistance for the operation by the State of a
system of public aid is not sufficient to establish consent on the part of the State to be sued in the federal
courts.”).
Failure to file a timely objection shall constitute a waiver of the right
to de novo review by the district court and to appeal the district court’s order.
/s/ John C. Nivison
U.S. Magistrate Judge

Dated this 26th day of March, 2021.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10210919. Public record. Not legal advice.