510 F. App'x 49
2d Cir.2013Background
- Clark sues state defendants (State Comptroller and retirement system attorneys) challenging delay and conduct related to retirement system proceedings.
- District Court granted judgment on the pleadings for the State on all claims.
- Plaintiff asserted pre- and post-deprivation due process claims, a class-of-one equal protection claim, a First Amendment retaliation claim, and a NY Gen. Mun. Law § 207-c claim.
- Issue whether Eleventh Amendment bars relief or whether Ex parte Young permits prospective relief against state officers.
- Hearing occurred on December 15, 2009 with a final order issued February 2010; court concluded claims were barred by Eleventh Amendment or lacked ongoing violation for Young exception.
- Court affirmed the district court’s judgment, albeit on different grounds for the post-deprivation due process claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eleventh Amendment bar to damages and relief | Clark seeks relief against state officers; argues ongoing violation allows Young relief | Eleventh Amendment bars money damages and improper to seek relief against state | Eleventh Amendment bars monetary damages and no Young relief |
| Post-deprivation due process survives under Young | Delay in hearing constitutes ongoing violation | Delay ended with final hearing and order; no ongoing violation | Young exception does not apply; claim fails on the merits |
| Other constitutional and state-law claims surviving | Counts for class-of-one, First Amendment retaliation, and §207-c viable | Claims meritless on pleadings | All remaining claims without merit |
| Scope of appellate affirmance | Appeal challenging district court rulings on merits | Affirmance proper on Eleventh Amendment grounds and alternative reasoning | Judgment affirmed in part on different grounds related to post-deprivation claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Green v. Mansour, 474 U.S. 64 (U.S. 1985) (Young doctrine requires ongoing federal-law violation for prospective relief)
- Ward v. Thomas, 207 F.3d 114 (2d Cir. 2000) (illustrates Young exception limitations)
- Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265 (U.S. 1986) (limits to prospective relief for past conduct under Young)
- In re Deposit Ins. Agency, 482 F.3d 612 (2d Cir. 2007) (establishes Young as suitable against official-capacity claims for ongoing violations)
- Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651 (U.S. 1974) (permits addressing Eleventh Amendment defense in first instance when jurisdictional in nature)
- Shabazz v. Coughlin, 852 F.2d 697 (2d Cir. 1988) (addressing Eleventh Amendment defense in first instance)