Buck v. Kentucky Horse Racing Commission, 2:13-cv-00342

Buck, proceeding pro se, sues the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission (KHRC) and related officials for claims arising from Kentucky regulations on bitless bridles used in horse racing.
Buck alleges regulatory actions in Kentucky—regarding bitless/war bridles—harmed his ability to market and sell his product.
Plaintiff asserts due process, Kentucky Consumer Protection Act, and common law claims (misrepresentation, interference with prospective economic advantage).
Buck seeks damages and declaratory or injunctive relief, arguing failure to hold hearings and inadequate responses to regulatory changes.
Defendants move to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1), 12(b)(2), and 12(b)(6); Buck moves to strike, amend (Sherman Act), obtain a preliminary injunction, and seek summary judgment.
The court, noting pro se status, prepares to decide on the motions based on written submissions without oral argument.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Subject matter jurisdiction under §1337	Buck contends §1337 provides federal jurisdiction over his claims.	KHRC and officials argue no jurisdiction under §1337 since claims depend on state statutes.	No jurisdiction under §1337; claims dismissed.
Eleventh Amendment bar to official-capacity claims	Buck argues waivers via interstate commerce participation.	Defendants assert Eleventh Amendment immunity for KHRC and officials in official capacities.	Eleventh Amendment bars official-capacity claims; dismissal granted.
Personal jurisdiction over individuals in their individual capacities	Buck asserts personal contacts with Utah entitle a Utah court to hear the case.	Defendants contend no minimum contacts with Utah by individuals.	Lack of minimum contacts; claims against Individual Defendants in their individual capacities dismissed.
Rule 12(b)(6) failure to state a claim against individuals	Buck claims actionable conduct by individuals in their capacities.	Arguments fail to plead plausible factual allegations against individuals.	Plaintiff failed to state claims against individuals; 12(b)(6) dismissal granted.
Leave to amend to add Sherman Act claim	Buck seeks to amend to add Sherman Act claim.	Amendment would be futile; state action immunizes such claims; Parker v. Brown applied.	Leave to amend denied as futile.

Parker v. Brown, 317 U.S. 341 (U.S. 1943) (state action immunity under Sherman Act)
Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 (U.S. 1996) (Commerce Clause cannot override Eleventh Amendment immunity)
Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Doe, 519 U.S. 425 (U.S. 1997) (sovereign immunity bars suits against state agencies in federal court)
Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (U.S. 1984) (Eleventh Amendment cannot be circumvented to sue states)
Holt v. United States, 46 F.3d 1000 (10th Cir. 1995) (distance between facial and factual 12(b)(1) challenges)
Delgado v. Gonzales, 428 F.3d 916 (10th Cir. 2005) (limited jurisdiction principles; jurisdictional burden on party asserting federal jurisdiction)
Adams v. Int’l Bd. Of Boilermakers, 262 F.2d 835 (10th Cir. 1958) (limits on federal jurisdiction under statutes governing commerce)
Wenz v. Memery Crystal, 55 F.3d 1503 (10th Cir. 1995) (pleading standards; reasonable inferences under Rule 12(b)(6))
Trujillo v. Williams, 465 F.3d 1210 (10th Cir. 2006) (specific jurisdiction analysis; minimum contacts and fair play)