Filed: May 20, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT _ May 20, 2019 Elisabeth A. Shumaker ALAN HEADMAN, Clerk of Court Plaintiff - Appellant, v. No. 18-4144 (D.C. No. 2:18-CV-00051-CW) STATE OF UTAH; UTAH (D. Utah) JUDICIAL COUNCIL; UTAH ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS, Defendants - Appellees. _ ORDER AND JUDGMENT * _ Before BRISCOE, BALDOCK, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges. _ This appeal grew out of a divorce case in state court. The two spou
Summary: FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT _ May 20, 2019 Elisabeth A. Shumaker ALAN HEADMAN, Clerk of Court Plaintiff - Appellant, v. No. 18-4144 (D.C. No. 2:18-CV-00051-CW) STATE OF UTAH; UTAH (D. Utah) JUDICIAL COUNCIL; UTAH ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS, Defendants - Appellees. _ ORDER AND JUDGMENT * _ Before BRISCOE, BALDOCK, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges. _ This appeal grew out of a divorce case in state court. The two spous..
More
FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
_________________________________ May 20, 2019
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
ALAN HEADMAN, Clerk of Court
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v. No. 18-4144
(D.C. No. 2:18-CV-00051-CW)
STATE OF UTAH; UTAH (D. Utah)
JUDICIAL COUNCIL; UTAH
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF
THE COURTS,
Defendants - Appellees.
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
_________________________________
Before BRISCOE, BALDOCK, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
This appeal grew out of a divorce case in state court. The two
spouses clashed over the amount that the husband (Mr. Alan Headman)
should pay in alimony. The ruling in state court left Mr. Headman
dissatisfied, and he sued in federal court to reassess the alimony. The
*
Oral argument would not materially help us to decide this appeal. We
have thus decided the appeal based on the appellate briefs and the record
on appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G).
This order and judgment does not constitute binding precedent except
under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.
But the order and judgment may be cited for its persuasive value if
otherwise appropriate. Fed. R. App. P. 32.1(a); 10th Cir. R. 32.1(A).
district court dismissed the federal case on three jurisdictional grounds:
(1) Eleventh Amendment immunity, (2) lack of standing with respect to
two of the defendants (the Utah Judicial Council and the Utah
Administrative Office of the Courts), and (3) abstention under Younger v.
Harris,
401 U.S. 37 (1971). We affirm based on Eleventh Amendment
immunity. 1
In considering Eleventh Amendment immunity, we engage in de novo
review. Colby v. Herrick,
849 F.3d 1273, 1276 (10th Cir. 2017). The
Eleventh Amendment ordinarily prevents federal litigation against states
and arms of the state. See Edelman v. Jordan,
415 U.S. 651, 662–63 (1974)
(states); Peterson v. Martinez,
707 F.3d 1197, 1205 (10th Cir. 2013) (arms
of the state).
There are three defendants: (1) the State of Utah, (2) the Utah
Judicial Council, and (3) the Utah Administrative Office of the Courts. All
three defendants enjoy Eleventh Amendment immunity as the state or an
arm of the state. See Abick v. Michigan,
803 F.2d 874, 876 (6th Cir. 1986)
(“The law is clear that . . . the State Judicial Council, under the Eleventh
Amendment, [is] immune from an action for damages or injunctive relief in
federal court.”).
1
We need not decide whether the dismissal could have been based on
standing or abstention. See Sinochem Int’l Co. v. Malaysia Int’l Shipping
Corp.,
549 U.S. 422, 431 (2007).
2
But Mr. Headman argues that the Eleventh Amendment would not bar
a claim for prospective relief. He is mistaken. The Eleventh Amendment
bars federal suits against states and state agencies for any kind of relief.
Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman,
465 U.S. 89, 100–01 (1984).
The Eleventh Amendment does not prohibit official-capacity suits against
state officers for prospective relief based on an ongoing violation of
federal law. Muscogee (Creek) Nation v. Pruitt,
669 F.3d 1159, 1166 (10th
Cir. 2012). But Mr. Headman has not sued any state officers. Thus, the
Eleventh Amendment bars all of Mr. Headman’s claims, including those for
prospective relief.
Affirmed.
Entered for the Court
Robert E. Bacharach
Circuit Judge
3