United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana
ORDER & REASONS
CARL J. BARBIER, District Judge.
Before the Court is Defendant Legislature of the State of Louisiana's Motion to Dismiss (Rec. Doc. 11) and Plaintiff Wayne Michel Reavis, Jr.'s opposition thereto. (Rec. Doc. 13) Having considered the motion and memoranda of the parties, the record, and the applicable law, the Court finds that the motion should be GRANTED for the reasons set forth more fully below.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed suit against "The Legislature of the State of Louisiana R.S. 15:1171" for the alleged miscalculation of his sentence by a judge and the Department of Corrections pursuant to Louisiana Revised Statute Section 15:1171. (Rec. Doc. 1) The Court construes this allegation as a constitutional challenge to Section 15:1171. Plaintiff alleges that the statute allows for two people-or entities-to hand down sentences in Louisiana. Id. He further seems to allege that, in his case, this practice has resulted in an unconstitutional extension of his sentence beyond his original release date. (Rec. Doc. 13) Thus, because the Court interprets Plaintiff's complaint as alleging a cause of action for the violation of his federal constitutional rights by state actors, the Court construes his claim as one brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Collins v. City of Harker Heights, Tex., 503 U.S. 115, 119 (1992). Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief: the recalculation of his sentence by a state court in a jury trial. (Rec. Doc. 1)
On January 21, 2015, Defendant filed the instant Motion to Dismiss, arguing that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. (Rec. Doc. 11) On February 2, 2015, Plaintiff opposed the motion. (Rec. Doc. 13)
Defendant argues that Plaintiff's complaint should be dismissed pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant argues that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims because state defendants are entitled to immunity under the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution. Defendant asserts that the well-established law of this circuit and Louisiana is clear that Louisiana has not waived its immunity from suit in federal court and that no suit shall be instituted against the state in any other court besides a Louisiana state court. In addition, a narrow exception to Eleventh Amendment immunity, the Ex Parte Young doctrine, which applies to officials who are named as defendants, does not apply in this case. Specifically, Defendant argues that Plaintiff has failed to meet the requirements of the Ex Parte Young doctrine as necessary to pierce a state official's Eleventh Amendment immunity.
Additionally, Defendant asserts that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because state defendants are entitled to legislative immunity. Defendant argues that not only is it immune from damages, but it is also immune from the suit in its entirety because Plaintiff has challenged actions that fall within the scope of its "legislative activity." In the alternative, Defendant insists that, to the extent that its members are sued in their individual capacities, the members, as state defendants, are entitled to qualified immunity. Defendants argue that this is so because the doctrine of qualified immunity provides protection to all except those who are "plainly incompetent" or "those who knowingly violate the law." Importantly, Plaintiff has the burden of proving that qualified immunity does not apply, and Plaintiff's allegations do not rise to a level of "objective unreasonableness." Finally, Defendant contends that Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden for obtaining injunctive relief.
In what this Court has construed as Plaintiff's opposition, Plaintiff requests relief because he allegedly remains incarcerated beyond his original full term. He further seems to suggest that the State has subjected him to double jeopardy in violation of the Constitution. In support, Plaintiff attached various documents that evince his incarceration. However, the motion and the attached documents do not contain legal arguments or assertions in response to Defendant's motion.
A. Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1)
In deciding a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), "the district court is free to weigh the evidence and resolve factual disputes in order to satisfy itself that it has the power to hear the case.'" Krim v. pcOrder.com, Inc., 402 F.3d 489, 494 (5th Cir. 2005). The party asserting jurisdiction must carry the burden of proof for a Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss. Randall D. Wolcott, M.D., P.A. v. Sebelius, 635 F.3d 757, 762 (5th Cir. 2011). The standard of review for a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) is the same as that for a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). United States v. City of New Orleans, No. 02-3618, 2003 WL 22208578, at *1 (E.D. La. Sept. 19, 2003).
To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the plaintiff must plead enough facts to "state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 547 (2007)). A claim is facially plausible when the plaintiff pleads facts that allow the court to "draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Id. A court must accept all well-pleaded facts as true and must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. Lormand v. U.S. Unwired, Inc., 565 F.3d 228, 232-33 (5th Cir. 2009); Baker v. ...