Eleventh Amendment bars a federal suit against a state agency regardless of the type of relief sought
How later courts described this case
- Eleventh Amendment bars a federal suit against a state agency regardless of the type of relief sought
- “[A] court may raise the issue of Eleventh-Amendment immunity sua sponte but, unlike subject- matter jurisdiction, is not obligated to do so.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
ALI S. ZAZA, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
-vs- ) Case No. CIV-23-75-F
)
OK BUREAU OF V.A., )
)
Defendant. )
ORDER
Plaintiff Ali S. Zaza, appearing pro se, has filed a complaint naming OK
Bureau of V.A. as defendant.1 Upon review of the complaint, it appears Mr. Zaza is
seeking to sue the Oklahoma Department of Veterans Affairs. He claims as follows:
The OK B VA Rep on October 15, 2021 called and
suggested I drop the appeal telling me that if I won the
appeal, I would not get an increase in VA comp. [T]his is
deceiving and malice. . . The fact is that I wou[l]d get VA
comp from the date of [initial filing in] 2004 [until] 2018.
This fact was concealed and it was admitted by the Rep
who called today trying to convince me to drop another
appeal on Feb. 2023. The Board of Appeal reminded me
to show up for Jan. 2022 appeal which I did in Muskogee
to be told I have no docket case[.] An OK [B] VA Rep
should not cheat veterans out of their entitlement. Deja vu
1800 “indian agents[.]”
Doc. no. 1, ECF p. 5.
1 Mr. Zaza has utilized the court’s form Complaint for a Civil Case.
As relief, Mr. Zaza requests an order for his appeal to be reinstated, that
defendant’s representative cease to try to convince veterans to drop their appeals,
and recovery of court costs and fees.
“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and as such, must have a
statutory basis to exercise jurisdiction.” Montoya v. Chao, 296 F.3d 952, 955 (10th
Cir. 2002). The basic statutory grants of federal-court subject-matter jurisdiction are
contained in 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546
U.S. 500, 513 (2006). Section 1331 provides for federal-question jurisdiction, which
exists if a plaintiff pleads a colorable claim arising under the Constitution or laws of
the United States. Id. Section 1332 provides for diversity jurisdiction, which exists
if a plaintiff presents a claim between parties of diverse citizenship that exceeds the
required jurisdictional amount, currently $75,000. Id.
In his complaint, Mr. Zaza invokes federal-question jurisdiction as the basis
for federal-court subject-matter jurisdiction. He lists one federal statute, 18 U.S.C.
§ 1001 (false or fraudulent statements in any matter within the jurisdiction of the
federal government), as the statute at issue. However, that statute is a criminal
statute, which does not provide a private right of action for Mr. Zaza. Clements v.
Chapman, 189 Fed. Appx. 688, 692 (10th Cir. 2006) (unpublished case cited as
persuasive pursuant to 10th Cir. R. 32.1(A)); Weiss v. Sawyer, 28 F. Supp. 2d 1221,
1227 (W.D. Okla. 1997). Thus, the criminal statute does not confer federal-question
jurisdiction for this lawsuit. Greene v. Tennessee Board of Judicial Conduct, 693
Fed. Appx. 782, 783 (10th Cir. 2017) (unpublished case cited as persuasive pursuant
to 10th Cir. R. 32.1(A)).
Although not invoked by Mr. Zaza, the court concludes that diversity
jurisdiction does not exist as a basis for federal-court jurisdiction. A state is not a
“citizen” for purposes of diversity jurisdiction. Moor v. Alameda County, 411 U.S.
693, 717 (1973). Because the Oklahoma Department of Veterans Affairs, created
by 72 O.S. § 63.1, is an arm of the state, it also is not a “citizen” for purposes of
diversity jurisdiction. Dougherty v. University of Oklahoma Bd. of Regents, 415
Fed. Appx. 23, 25 (10 Cir. 2011) (unpublished case cited as persuasive pursuant to
10" Cir. R. 32.1(A)).
Courts “have an independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter
jurisdiction exists, even in the absence of a challenge from any party.” Arbaugh,
546 U.S. at 514. “[W]hen a federal court concludes that it lacks subject-jurisdiction,
the court must dismiss the complaint in its entirety.” Id.
The court concludes that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over Mr. Zaza’s
complaint and action. Therefore, the court finds that Mr. Zaza’s complaint and
action must be dismissed without prejudice.”
Accordingly, plaintiff Ali S. Zaza’s complaint and action is DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. A judgment will
be entered separately.
DATED this 26" day of January, 2023.
STEPHEN P. FRIOT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
23-0075p001.docx
? Even if the court had federal-court subject-matter jurisdiction over Mr. Zaza’s complaint and
action, Mr. Zaza’s complaint and action against the Oklahoma Department of Veterans Affairs
would be barred by the Eleventh Amendment. See, ANR Pipeline Co. v. Lafaver, 150 F.3d 1178,
1187 (10" Cir. 1998) (Eleventh Amendment bars a federal suit against a state agency regardless
of the type of relief sought), overruled on other grounds by Hill v. Kemp, 478 F.3d 1236, 1259
(10" Cir. 2007); see also, U.S. ex rel. Burlbaw v. Orenduff, 548 F.3d 931, 942 (10" Cir. 2008)
(“[A] court may raise the issue of Eleventh-Amendment immunity sua sponte but, unlike subject-
matter jurisdiction, is not obligated to do so.”).