Appendix A — Springer v. Alabama

ay aoe

as"

OO 1177 JUL 18 2000

No.

BEFICE DE IME -CtERK-

IN THE SUPREME COURT

OF THE UNITED STATES

Lindsey K. Springer,

Petitioner,

Vv.

Alabama, a Union State, et al.,

Respondents.

Appendix A

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI FROM

THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

Ling K._spri

5147 S. Harvard, Suite 116

Tulsa, Oklahoma, 74135 —

918-748-5539

“7

pont a

INDEX

DIBtrict Court GEMS. cccccccesecesecveccossa

10th Cir. Order and Judgment..............12

10th Cir. Order of Sanctions. ....ccccccceclB]

10th Cir. denial of Petit. for Reh. En. B.19/}

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

LINDSEY K. SPRINGER, FILED 11-9-99

Plaintiff,

Vv. Case No. 99-CV-3-BU

ALABAMA, a Union State, et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER

This matter comes before the Court upon

the motions to dismiss filed by Defendants,

Maryland, West Virginia, Oklahoma, Minnesota,

‘Connecticut, Montana, Indiana, Hawaii, New

York, Rhode Island, Kansas, Nevada, Texas,

California, Arizona, Vermont, Ohio, Colorado,

Pennsylvania, Missouri, South Carolina,

Kentucky, Massachusetts, North Dakota,

Oregon, Alabama, Illinois, North Carolina,

Arkansas, Alaska, Maine, Washington, New

Mexico, Tennessee, Michigan, New Hampshire,

Florida, Georgia, Wisconsin, Nebraska,

Louisiana, South Dakota, Utah, New Jersey,

Mississippi and Delaware (Docket Entries #

325, 328, 329, 330, 331, 333, 336, 340, 341,

343, 346, 350, 354, 355, 361, 362, 365, 366,

367, 369, 370, 373, 375, 376, 378, 379, 380,

382, 386, 387, 390, 393, 394, 397, 399, 401,

402, 403, 404, 407, 412, 419, 425, 435, 438

and 451). Plaintiff, Lindsey K. Springer,

has responded to the motions and upon due

consideration of the parties’ submissions,

the Court makes its determination.

Plaintiff brings this action against all

fifty states pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983

seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.

Specifically, Plaintiff seeks a declaratory

judgment finding that states’ election laws

are unconstitutional and an _e injunction

directing each state to place Plaintiff’s

name on the 2000 presidential election

ballots to be distributed to each state’s

appointed Electors.

In their motions, Defendants request

dismissal of Plaintiffs action on various

grounds. One of the grounds raised by all

Defendants is that Plaintiff’s action is

barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Upon

review, the Court concurs with Defendants and

concludes that Plaintiff’s action is

precluded by the Eleventh Amendment. Because

this issue is dispositive of Plaintiff’s

action, the Court shall not address the other

grounds raised by Defendants in support of

dismissal.

The Eleventh Amendment provides:

The judicial power of the United States

shall not be construed to extend to any

suit in law or equity, commenced or

prosecuted by Citizens of another State,

or by Citizens or subjects of my

Foreign State.

U.S. Const. Amend. IX. The Supreme Court’s

decisions establish that the Eleventh

Amendment restricts federal jurisdiction not

only over suits brought against a state by

citizens of another state but also over suits

brought against a State by its own citizens.

Pennhurst State School & Hosp v. Halderman,

465 U.S. 89, 98, 100(1984); Hans v.

Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1, 10(1890). This

|

jurisdictional bar applies regardless of the’

nature of the relief sought against a State.

Pennhurst, 465 U.S. at 100.

The sovereign immunity afforded by the

Eleventh Amendment, is not absolute. In

Clark v. Barnard, 108 U.S. 436, 447(1883),

the Supreme Court held that if a state waives

its sovereign immunity and consents to suit

in federal court, the Eleventh is not a bar.

A State’s waiver of Eleventh Amendment

immunity, though, is not easily presumed.

Any waiver by a state must be unequivocally

expressed. Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651,

673(1974)(a state’s waiver of Eleventh

Amendment immunity occurs only where stated

by the "most expressive language" or by such

"overwhelming implications" as will leave no

- room for doubt). Furthermore, "constructive

consent" by a state is not sufficient to

overcome sovereign immunity. id. In

addition, the Supreme Court has held that

Congress may abrogate Eleventh Amendment

4

sovereign immunity without the. state’s

consent. Fitzpartrick v. Bitzer, 427 U.S.

445, 456(1976). However, "Congress must

express its intention to abrogate the

Eleventh Amendment in unmistakable language

in the statute itself." Atascadero State

Hosp. v. Scalon, 473 U.S. 234, 243(1985).

The Supreme Court will not infer

Congressional abrogation of the Eleventh

Amendment. Pennhurst, 465 U.S. 99.

In the instant case, Plaintiff has not

cited to or referred to any state statutes or

constitutional provisions wherein Defendants

have expressly waived Eleventh Amendment

immunity for Plaintiff’s claims in this

action. Atascadero, 473 U.S. at 238 n.1 (a

state may effectuate a waiver of sovereign

immunity by a state statute or constitutional

provision). Nevertheless, Plaintiff, citing

to Quern v. Jordon, 440 U.S. 332, 342(1979),

suggests that a state’s Eleventh Amendment

immunity may be impliedly waived and that

Ma i i i Kc

Defendants have impliedly waived their

Eleventh Amendment immunity or consented to

suit by “acting outside [their] immunity."

However, as previously discussed, a state’s

waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity must be

unequivocally expressed. Edelman, 415, U.S.

673. Quern does not, as suggested by

Plaintiff, stand for the position that a

state’s waiver or consent to suit may be

implied. Therefore, the Court finds that

Plaintiff has failed to establish an

effective waiver of sovereign immunity by

Defendants.

Next, the Court must consider whether

Congress has abrogated the state’s sovereign

immunity in unmistakable language in 42

U.S.C. § 1983. The Court finds no such

unmistakable language in the statute.

Furthermore, the court notes that the Supreme |

court has specifically held that Congress did

not abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity when

it enacted § 1983. quern, 440 at 345. |

6

In addition, the Court notes that the

Supreme Court has held that a state is not a

"person" for a purpose of a claim brought

under § 1983. Will v. Michigan Department of

State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 65(1989). In his

response brief, Plaintiff argues that because

Defendants raised as one of their ground for

dismissal a lack of jurisdiction over their

persons, the states are also to be considered

"persons" for purpose of § 1983. Plaintiff,

however has not cited any authority for his

position. As the Supreme Court has

specifically held that a state is not a

person within the meaning of § 1983, the

Court finds that Defendants’ Fed.R.Civ.Pr.

12(b)(2) motions to dismiss for lack of

personal jurisdiction do not constitute a

waiver of the sovereign immunity afforded by

the Eleventh Amendment for Plaintiff’s action

under § 1983.

In his response brief, Plaintiff

additionally argues that because he only

7

seeks declaratory and prospective injunctive

relief, the Eleventh Amendment does not bar

his suit. However, as previously discussed,

regardless of the nature of the relief sought

against the state, the Eleventh Amendment

prohibits suit in federal court against a

state without its consent. Pennhurst, 465

U.S. at 100. While the Court recognizes that

the Supreme Court has held that a suit may be

brought against state officials in their

official capacities for prospective

injunctive relief, Ex parte Yound, 209 U.S.

123, 155-56(1908), Plaintiff has not brought

an action against state officials in their

official capacities for prospective

injunctive relief. Rather, he has brought an

action against the fifty states themselves.

Because Defendants have not

unequivocally waived their Eleventh Amendment

immunity and Congress has not abrogated that

immunity in its enactment of 42 U.S.C. §

“1983, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s suit

against Defendants is barred by the Eleventh

Amendment and that Defendants’ motions should

be granted.

The Court notes that four defendants,

Idaho, Iowa, Virginia and Wyoming, have not

filed motions to dismiss. The Court,

however, exercises its discretion and raises

the Eleventh Amendment bar sua sponte as

these Defendants. Mascheroni v. Board of

Regents of University of California, 28 F.

34,1554, 1558-1559(10th.Cir. 1994). For the

same reasons above-stated, the Court finds

that the Eleventh Amendment ' precludes

Plaintiff’s action against these Defendants

and dismissal of the action against them is

appropriate.

Based upon the foregoing, the motions to

dismiss filed by Defendants, Maryland, West

Virginia, Oklahoma, Minnesota, Connecticut,

Montana, Indiana, hawaii, New York, Rhode

Island, Kansas, Nevada, Texas, California,

Arizona, Vermont, Ohio, Colorado,

Pennsylvania, Missouri, South Carolina,

Kentucky, Massachusetts, North Dakota,

Oregon, Alabama, Illinois, North Carolina,

Arkansas, Alaska, Maine, Washington, New

Mexico, Tennessee, Michigan, New Hampshire,

Florida, Georgia, Wisconsin, Nebraska,

Louisiana, South Dakota, Utah, New Jersey,

Mississippi and Delaware (Docket Entries #

325,328, 329, 330, 331, 226, 340, 341, 343,

346, 350, 354, 355, 361, 362, 365, 366, 367,

369, 370, 373, 375, 376, 378, 379, 380, 382,

386, 387, 390, 393, 394, 397, 399, 401, 402,

403, 404, 407, 412, 419, 425, 435, 438 and

451) are GRANTED. The action of Plaintiff,

Lindsey K. Springer, against these Defendants

and Defendants, Idaho, Iowa, Virginia and

Wyoming, is DISMISSED for lack of subject

matter jurisdiction.

In light of the Court’s dismissal of

Plaintiff’s action, the Court DECLARES MOOT

Defendant, Louisiana’s Motion to Dismiss for

Failure to Comply with March 4, 1999, court

10

Order Directing Plaintiff to Serve Defendants

\

with Amended Complaint on or before March >

1999 in accordance with Applicable Federal

Rule Provisions(Docket Entry # 409) and

Plaintiff, Lindsey K. Springer’s Motion for

Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary

Injunction (Docket Entries # 457-1 and # 457-

a)

ENTERED this 9th day of November, 1999.

Michael Burrage

United States District Judge

11

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

LINDSEY K. SPRINGER,

Plaintiff-Appellant, No. 99-5227

Vv D.C. No. 99-CV-3-BU

STATE OF ALABAMA, et al.,

Defendants-Appellees

MARCH 24, 2000

ORDER AND JUDGEMENT

Before Baldock, Henry and Lucero, Circuit

Judges.

Plaintiff-appellant Lindsey Springer

brought suit against all fifty States

alleging that their ballot access. laws

violate his constitutional rights. Holding

that these claims were barred by the Eleventh

Amendment immunity, the district court ruled -—_

in favor of forty-six defendants that filed

motions to dismiss and dismissing the

remaining claims sua sponte. We affirm and

order Springer to show cause why we should

not impose sanctions.

Springer apparently sent a letter to the

appropriate officials in each of the fifty

States asserting he will be thirty-five years

of age by January 20, 2001, is a natural born

12

citizen, and has always resided in Oklahoma,

and on that basis requested that his name be

placed on the primary and general election

ballots for President of the United States.

The several States either rejected or ignored

the request. As he has done so often,

Springer responded by filing this instant

lawsuit in federal court.

In general, the Eleventh Amendment bars

suits in federal court against non-consenting

States. See Seminole Tribe of Florida v.

Florida, 517 U.S. 44, 54, (1996). Springer

advances several meritless arguments as to

why his own suit against every State in the

Union is not so barred. It does not matter

that Springer is seeking only declaratory and

injunctive relief, because "the relief sought

by a plaintiff suing a State is irrelevant to_

the question whether the suit is barred by

the Eleventh Amendment." Jd @ 58 Nor has he

shown that the States have waived their

immunity; there has been no express waiver,

13

and a "state...does not waive Eleventh

Amendment immunity merely by appearing a

suit." Mascheroni v. Board of Regents of the

Univ. of California, 28 F.3d 1554, 1560(10th

Cir. 1994). Likewise, his assertion that 42

U.S.C. § 1983 abrogates the Eleventh

Amendment is baseless. See Quern v. Jordan,

440 U.S. 332, 343-45(1979).

Springer’s assertions that the district

court abused its discretion when it dismissed

sua sponte his claims against four defendant

States on Eleventh Amendment immunity grounds

is equally meritless. See Mascheroni, 28

F.3d. at 1559. Because the application of

Eleventh Amendment immunity is dispositive of

Springer’s Claim, we do not address the

additional issues raised on appeal.

We find Springer’s claim to be wholly

without merit, and we consider the outcome of

the appeal to have been so obvious as to

render it frivolous. This is not the first

time Springer has filed a meritless action in

14

federal court or brought a frivolous appeal.

See Springer v. Infinity Group, No. 98-5182,

1999 W: 651391(10th Cir. Aug. 26,

1999) (affirming the district court’s

dismissal for failure to state a

Claim) (unpublished); Springer v. I.R.S., No.

5072, 1996 WL 164459(10th Cir. April 8,

1996) (imposing sanctions for frivolous

appeal)(unpublished); cf Springer v. Hustler

Magazine, No. 5117, 1999 WL 970242 at

*1n1(10th Cir. October 28, 1999)(affirming

dismissal on summary judgment and noting that

two arguments on appeal were "utterly without

merit")(unpublished); Buckner v. United

States, No. 98-5057, 1999 WL 61071(10th Cir.

Feb. 4, 1999(noting that the district court |

had granted summary judgment against the

plaintiffs, including Springer, on their

claim that federal taxation amounted to

involuntary servitude) (unpublished). we

possess the inherent power to impose

sanctions to regulate our docket, promote

15

judicial efficiency, and deter frivolous

filings. See Van Sickle v. Holloway, 791

F.2d 1431, 1437(10th Cir. 1986). "This Court

need not endure baseless, repetitive appeals

serving only to waste the resources of the

court and the appellees." Smith v. Rubin,

No. 97-1242, 1998 WL 99019, at *4(10th Cir.

March 9, 1998)(unpublished). Therefore, we

order Springer to show cause why he should

not be sanctioned in the amount of $ 1000,

payable to the Clerk of the United States

Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, as a

limited contribution to the United States for

the cost and expenses of this action, and be

prohibited from filing any further complaints

in the United States District Court, in any

civil matter, excluding habeas corpus

petitions, until he has filed with the clerk

of this Court a notarized affidavit, in

proper legal form, stating that he has

satisfied this sanction.

Accordingly, we direct the clerk of this

16

Court to issue an order requiring Springer to

show cause why the above sanction should not

be imposed. Springer’s response shall not

exceed five pages. If the response is not

received by the Clerk within ten days of the

issuance of the order, the sanction shall be

imposed and the clerks of this Court and

United States District Court for the Northern

District of Oklahoma are directed to return

any prohibited filings to Springer.

We AFFIRM the judgment of the district

court. The mandate shall issue forthwith.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Carlos F. Lucero

Circuit Judge.

17

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

LINDSEY K. SPRINGER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

Vv No. 99-5227

STATE OF ALABAMA, et al.,

Defendants~-Appellees.

APRIL, 2000

ORDER

The Court ordered Plaintiff-Appellant

Lindsey Springer to show cause why we should

impose a $ 1000 sanction in favor of the

Court. The Court finds the sanction should

be imposed. The Clerk is directed to refuse

any filing of Mr. Springer until he has

complied with this Order. (emphasis added)

The Court

18

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

LINDSEY K. SPRINGER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

Vv. No. 99-5227

STATE OF ALABAMA, et al.,

Defendants-Appel lees

APRIL 19, 2000

ORDER

Your petition for rehearing En Banc was

submitted to each Judge in active service

with the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals and

no judge requesting a poll to be taken, your

petitioner rehearing En Banc is denied.

The Court.

19