“Eleventh Amendment immunity applies regardless of whether a plaintiff seeks declaratory or injunctive relief, or money damages.”
How later courts described this case
- “Eleventh Amendment immunity applies regardless of whether a plaintiff seeks declaratory or injunctive relief, or money damages.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
ANTONIO GARCIA ROPER, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. CIV-24-727-SLP
)
STATE OF OKLAHOMA, )
)
Defendant. )
O R D E R
Plaintiff, appearing pro se, has filed a Complaint [Doc. No. 1] against State of
Oklahoma. Plaintiff’s Complaint is subject to screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2). The Court may sua sponte dismiss all or part of a case if a pro se plaintiff
who is proceeding in forma pauperis “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted”
or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)-(iii).
“Dismissal of a pro se complaint for failure to state a claim is proper only where it
is obvious that the plaintiff cannot prevail on the facts he has alleged and it would be futile
to give him an opportunity to amend.” Kay v. Bemis, 500 F.3d 1214, 1217 (10th Cir. 2007)
(quoting Curley v. Perry, 246 F.3d 1278, 1281 (10th Cir. 2001)). In reviewing the
Complaint, the Court accepts all factual allegations as true and draws all inferences in
Plaintiff’s favor. See id. While “a pro se litigant’s pleadings are to be construed liberally
and held to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers, . . . . the
court cannot take on the responsibility of serving as the litigant’s attorney in constructing
arguments.” Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005)
(quotation marks and citations omitted).
Plaintiff asserts a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim, alleging violations of his Fifth and Eighth
Amendment rights under the Constitution.1 Compl. [Doc. No. 1] at 4. Plaintiff claims that
“the actual acts of negligence committed in Oklahoma State Courts le[d] to a wrongful
conviction.” Id. Specifically, Plaintiff claims that he “was sentenced . . . by ADA Kelly
Collins in Judge Timothy Henderson[’]s courtroom,” and “it came out in 2021 that the 2
were having a sexual affair.” Id.
The sole Defendant named in Plaintiff’s Complaint is the State of Oklahoma. But
the Eleventh Amendment bars Plaintiff’s claim against the state of Oklahoma. “The
ultimate guarantee of the Eleventh Amendment is that nonconsenting States may not be
sued by private individuals in federal court.” Bd. of Trustees of Univ. of Ala. v. Garrett,
531 U.S. 356, 363 (2001); see also Steadfast Ins. Co. v. Agricultural Ins. Co., 507 F.3d
1250, 1252 (10th Cir. 2007) (“Eleventh Amendment immunity applies regardless of
whether a plaintiff seeks declaratory or injunctive relief, or money damages.”).
To be sure, an arm of the state may be liable to suit where the state has waived its
Eleventh Amendment immunity, see Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706, 755 (1999), or if
Congress has abrogated it, see Garrett, 531 U.S. at 363. But neither exception applies here.
See Okla. Stat. tit. 51, § 152.1(B) (“[I]t is not the intent of the state to waive any rights
1 Section 1983 is the remedial vehicle which allows litigants to seek redress for constitutional
violations perpetrated by persons acting under color of state law. See Brown v. Buhman, 822 F.3d
1151, 1162 n.9 (10th Cir. 2016).
under the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution.”); Quern v. Jordan, 440
U.S. 332, 345 (1979) (concluding Congress did not abrogate states’ Eleventh Amendment
immunity by enacting 42 U.S.C. § 1983). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s claims against the State
of Oklahoma are subject to dismissal.
Additionally, because leave to amend would be futile, this action is subject to
dismissal. See Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). “[W]hen a state
prisoner seeks damages in a § 1983 suit, the district court must” dismiss the complaint if
“judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction
or sentence . . . unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the conviction or sentence has
already been invalidated.” Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994). Plaintiff’s
Complaint necessarily implies the invalidity of his sentence because he claims the
relationship between ADA Collins and Judge Henderson tainted the underlying
prosecution.
But even if Plaintiff’s claims were not barred by Heck, they would be subject to a
two-year statute of limitations. See Lawson v. Okmulgee Cnty. Crim. Just. Auth., 726 F.
App’x 685, 690 (10th Cir. 2018). Even assuming the statute of limitations began running
at the time Plaintiff learned about the relationship in 2021, his claim would have expired
in December 2023 at the latest. This action was not filed until July 18, 2024. Thus, it is
subject to sua sponte dismissal. See Fogle v. Pierson, 435 F.3d 1252, 1258 (10th Cir. 2006)
(“A complaint may be dismissed sua sponte under § 1915 based on an affirmative
defense—such as statute of limitations—‘[] when the defense is obvious from the face of
the complaint and no further factual record is required to be developed.’” (quoting Fratus
v. DeLand, 49 F.3d 673, 674-75 (10th Cir. 1995))).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice.”
A separate judgment of dismissal will be entered.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 19" day of August, 2024.
7 bb
SCOTT L. PALK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
“Fleventh Amendment immunity is jurisdictional,” so dismissals on this basis should be without
prejudice. Colby v. Herrick, 849 F.3d 1273, 1278 (10th Cir. 2017).