CANNADY v. STATE OF MISSOURI
1:20-cv-00205
D.D.C.Apr 24, 2020Background
- Pro se plaintiff Vincent Cannady sued the State of Missouri, the Missouri Attorney General’s Office, Bates County, and Bates County prosecutor Lynn Ewing, III, alleging violations of the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments, the ADA, Titles V/VII of the Civil Rights Act, and Title 38 related to his employment and termination from Missouri DNR under a veterans’ program.
- Cannady filed in D.D.C. after litigating the same claims in the Western District of Missouri; he attached documents from that case, including a denial of leave to amend and related orders.
- The Western District of Missouri had denied Cannady leave to amend and later dismissed State defendants on sovereign-immunity and failure-to-state-a-claim grounds; appeals were filed and subsequently dismissed or pending.
- The D.D.C. record showed no proof of service on defendants and Cannady filed here only after adverse rulings in Missouri.
- The D.C. court concluded the action was an attempt to circumvent prior adverse rulings, and noted likely lack of personal jurisdiction over state defendants and official-capacity immunity for the prosecutor.
- The Court dismissed the complaint without reaching on-the-merits findings, relying on comity/first-filed principles, immunity, and personal-jurisdiction concerns.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether D.D.C. should proceed given parallel litigation in W.D. Mo. | Cannady sought to litigate claims in D.D.C., asserting unfair treatment in Missouri courts and seeking damages. | Defendants relied on the prior Missouri proceedings and orders and argued comity/priority of the earlier-filed case. | Court dismissed under first-filed/priority/comity principles; D.D.C. would not hear claims already pending/resolved in W.D. Mo. |
| Failure to serve process (Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m)) | Cannady filed complaint but record lacked proof of service. | Defendants would note absence of service and Rule 4(m) deadlines. | Court noted the ninety-day service period had run and that dismissal would be appropriate (among other grounds). |
| Sovereign immunity for State and state officials sued in official capacity | Cannady sought monetary relief from the State and state officials. | Defendants argued states and officials sued in official capacity are immune from money damages. | Court found state/official-capacity defendants immune from damages and relied on prior dismissal in W.D. Mo. on immunity grounds. |
| Personal jurisdiction over Missouri, AG Office, and prosecutor Ewing | Cannady proceeded in D.C. against these defendants. | Defendants argued D.C. long-arm does not reach states/agencies and Ewing had no D.C. contacts; prosecutor official-capacity suits for damages are barred. | Court concluded it likely lacked personal jurisdiction over state/agency and that Ewing was immune in official capacity, supporting dismissal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Monroe v. Arkansas State Univ., 495 F.3d 591 (8th Cir. 2007) (state and state entities immune from suits for money damages)
- Andrus ex rel. Andrus v. Arkansas, 197 F.3d 953 (8th Cir. 1999) (official-capacity damages claims against states are barred by sovereign immunity)
- Poku v. FDIC, 752 F. Supp. 3d 23 (D.D.C. 2010) (where two federal suits involve same parties and cause, the first-filed action has priority)
- WMATA v. Ragonese, 617 F.2d 828 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (federal courts apply priority/first-filed principles between parallel federal cases)
- Trump v. Comm. on Ways & Means, U.S. House of Reps., 415 F. Supp. 3d 98 (D.D.C. 2019) (D.C. long-arm statute does not reach states or state agencies)
- United States v. Ferrara, 54 F.3d 825 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (D.C. Circuit precedent limiting application of D.C. long-arm statute to states)
- Schenk v. Chavis, 461 F.3d 1043 (8th Cir. 2006) (prosecutors are immune from damages for actions taken in their official prosecutorial capacities)