Dilley v. State of Louisiana

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

CLIFTON DILLEY CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

STATE OF LOUISIANA, ET AL. NO. 19-00391-BAJ-EWD

RULING AND ORDER

This is a civil rights action arising from a police shooting. Plaintiff Clifton

Dilley has sued the police officer who shot him, former Trooper Kasha Domingue

(hereinafter, “Trooper Domingue”), as well as her then-employers, the Louisiana State

Police (LSP), the Department of Public Safety and Corrections (DPSC), and the State

of Louisiana. Plaintiffis pursuing the following claims: (1) a constitutional individual

capacity excessive force claim against Trooper Domingue; (2) a state law negligence

claim against Trooper Domingue; (3) a state law vicarious liability claim against the

state entities; and (4) a state law failure to supervise and train claim against the state

entities. (Doc. 1).

Now before the Court is Defendants LSP and DPSC’s (collectively,

“DPSC/LSP”) Rule 12(C) Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. 116, the

“Motion”), seeking dismissal of Plaintiffs claims against the state entities pursuant

to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(C) on the grounds of Eleventh Amendment

immunity. Ud. at 1). Plaintiff opposes the motion. (Doc. 118). For the reasons that

follow, the Motion will be granted.

“The Eleventh Amendment grants a state immunity from suit in federal court

by citizens of other states, and by its own citizens as well.” Barton v. Dresser, LLC,

2023 WL 5120987, at *2 (W.D. La. Aug. 9, 2028) (citing Lapides v. Bd. of Regents, 535

U.S. 618, 616 (2002)). While the immunity doctrine acts as an affirmative defense to

preclude litigation in a federal forum, it is “more akin to a limitation on subject-

matter jurisdiction.” Union Pac. R.R. Co. v. Louisiana Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 662 F.3d

386, 340 (5th Cir. 2011). Unlike subject-matter jurisdiction, however, Eleventh

Amendment immunity may be waived by the state. Jd. Courts have found waiver of

immunity when the state: (i) “voluntarily invokes federal-court jurisdiction,” or (ii)

“makes a ‘clear declaration’ that it intends to submit to federal jurisdiction.” Id.

(citing Coll. Sav. Bank v. Fla. Prepaid Postsecondary Educ. Expense Bd., 527 U.S.

666, 670 (1999)).

In its Motion, DPSC/LSP asserts it is entitled to Eleventh Amendment

immunity as an arm of the state because it has neither invoked the Court’s

jurisdiction nor clearly waived its right to this immunity. (Doc. 116-1 at 3). Plaintiff

responds that DPSC/LSP’s conduct as an active participant in the lawsuit—

“participating in discovery, status conferences, depositions, and filing . . . Motions’—

constitutes an intent to defend this action on the merits. (Doc. 118 at 4).

In this case, which was filed on August 6, 2019, the only issue that has been

litigated to date is Trooper Domingue’s 2023 Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc.

94), which the Court denied, (Doc. 120). Prior to this, the matter had been stayed and

administratively closed for two years starting in October 2021, while the State of

Louisiana conducted criminal proceedings against Trooper Domingue. (Doc. 50 at 2).

For its part, DSPC/LSP’s involvement has been limited to matters related to Trooper

Domingue’s Motion for Summary Judgment. (See Docs. 70, 71, and 86). The state law

claims brought by Plaintiff against the state entities have not been litigated yet, and

no discovery has occurred regarding those claims. (Doc. 119).

Although Plaintiff argues that DSPC/LSP has actively participated in this

matter such that it has waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity, the U.S. Court of

Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has held that far more involvement is required before a

Court can find waiver. In Union Pac. R.R. Co. v. La. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 662 F.3d 336

(5th Cir. 2011), the Fifth Circuit held that Louisiana did not waive its Eleventh

Amendment immunity even when it litigated the case on the merits and raised the

immunity issue only on appeal. Jd. at 342. In that case, like this one, Louisiana was

involuntarily brought into federal court as a defendant. Jd. at 341. The Fifth Circuit

found that even though Louisiana had defended the case on the merits, “it never chose

to litigate in a federal forum” and its conduct was otherwise “insufficient to constitute

an unequivocal or clear declaration of waiver.” Id.; see Sullivan v. Univ. of Tex. Health

Sct. Ctr. at Hous. Dental Branch, 217 F. App’x 391, 3893 (5th Cir. 2007) (per curiam)

(finding no waiver where state participated in administrative proceedings before the

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission); Neinast v. Texas, 217 F.3d 275, 279-—

80 (5th Cir. 2000) (finding no waiver where state litigated a motion to dismiss); Evans

v. City of Bishop, 238 F.3d 586, 589 n.6 (5th Cir. 2000) (explaining that Eleventh

Amendment immunity need not even always be raised at the trial level).

Here, DPSC/LSP has successfully established that it did not waive its Eleventh

Amendment immunity as an arm of the State of Louisiana. Neither the length of time

that DPSC/LSP took to assert immunity nor its participation in litigating issues

related to the claims against Trooper Domingue are sufficient to find voluntary

waiver of immunity. Because DPSC/LSP has not waived its right to sovereign

immunity, Plaintiffs claims against DPSC/LSP must be dismissed without

prejudice.!

Accordingly,

ORDERED that Defendants Louisiana State Police and the Department

of Public Safety and Corrections’ Rule 12(C) Motion for Judgment on the

Pleadings (Doc. 116) be and is hereby GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs claims against Defendants

Louisiana State Police and the Department of Public Safety and Corrections be and

are hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. ah

Baton Rouge, Louisiana, this IG- “day of October, 2024

(ba!

bos

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

1 Dismissal of claims for plaintiffs who have no standing to sue in federal court generally should be

302). without prejudice. Treme v. St. John the Baptist Parish Council, 93 F.4th 792, 800 (5th Cir.