Page:Bowyer v. Ducey (CV-20-02321-PXH-DJH) (2020) Order.pdf/15

 U.S. Const. amend. XI. Such immunity applies when a citizen brings a claim against their own state. See Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1, 19 (1890). The immunity extends to “suit[s] against state officials when the state is the real, substantial party in interest.” ''Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman'', 465 U.S. 89, 100 (1984). “This jurisdictional bar applies regardless of the nature of the relief sought.” Id. “When the suit is brought only against state officials, a question arises as to whether that suit is a suit against the State itself.” Id. at 101. “The general rule is that a suit is against the sovereign… if the effect of the judgment would be to restrain the Government from acting, or to compel it to act.” Dugan v. Rank, 372 U.S. 609, 620 (1963).

There are three recognized exceptions to the above: (1) Congress has abrogated the immunity within a federal statute; (2) the State has waived immunity and allowed individuals to sue it pursuant to specific state statutes; and (3) in “claims seeking ' injunctive relief against state officials to remedy a state’s ' violation of  law.” ''Ariz. Students’ Ass’n v. Ariz. Bd. of Regents, 824 F.3d 858, 865 (9th Cir. 2016) (citing Ex parte Young'', 209 U.S. 123 (1908)) (emphasis added).

None of these exceptions are present here. As for Plaintiffs’ 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims, Congress did not abrogate the states’ immunity from suit in the enacting language of Section 1983, and therefore, the Eleventh Amendment bars those claims. See Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 66 (1989) (holding that Section 1983 “does not provide a federal forum for litigants who seek a remedy against a State for alleged deprivations of civil liberties”). Plaintiffs provided no argument or authority that the state has explicitly waived its immunity for elections challenges. Therefore, the second exception does not apply. As for the remaining claims, the Court must determine whether Plaintiffs are seeking prospective relief to cure an ongoing violation of federal law.

“In determining whether the doctrine of Ex parte Young avoids an Eleventh Amendment bar to suit, a court need only conduct a straightforward inquiry into whether [the] complaint alleges an ongoing violation of federal law and seeks relief properly characterized as prospective.” ''Verizon Md., Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n'', 535 U.S. 635, 645