Devon Brown v. Florida Department of Revenue Office of Child Support Enforcement
697 F. App'x 692
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Devon Brown, proceeding pro se, sued the Florida Department of Revenue, Office of Child Support Enforcement under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging multiple constitutional violations (separation of powers; Fourth, Seventh, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Amendments) and that child support is unconstitutional.
- The Department moved to dismiss, arguing Eleventh Amendment immunity and that it is not a “person” under § 1983.
- The district court granted the motion, concluding the state agency is immune under the Eleventh Amendment and is not a § 1983 person.
- Brown appealed, arguing the Eleventh Amendment does not bar federal suits for alleged constitutional violations and that the Department is a business subject to § 1983.
- The Eleventh Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo and applied liberal construction to Brown’s pro se pleadings.
- The panel affirmed dismissal on Eleventh Amendment grounds and declined to reach the § 1983 “person” question because sovereign immunity was dispositive.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the state agency is immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment | Brown: Eleventh Amendment does not bar federal suits for alleged constitutional violations | Dept.: State agency is protected by Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity; no waiver or abrogation | Court: Agency immune; Eleventh Amendment bars the § 1983 suit |
| Whether Congress abrogated Eleventh Amendment immunity in § 1983 | Brown: § 1983 permits suit for constitutional violations | Dept.: Congress did not abrogate state immunity for § 1983 claims | Court: Congress has not abrogated immunity for § 1983; immunity stands |
| Whether the state consented or waived immunity | Brown: (argues entitlement to relief) | Dept.: No consent or waiver to be sued in federal court | Court: No waiver or consent; Eleventh Amendment applies |
| Whether the Department is a "person" under § 1983 | Brown: Department is a business and thus a § 1983 person | Dept.: As a state agency, not a § 1983 person (alternative defense) | Court: Did not reach this issue because Eleventh Amendment immunity was dispositive |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Emp’t Discrimination Litig. Against State of Ala., 198 F.3d 1305 (11th Cir. 1999) (standards for de novo review of Eleventh Amendment dismissal)
- Tannenbaum v. United States, 148 F.3d 1262 (11th Cir. 1998) (pro se pleadings construed liberally)
- Abusaid v. Hillsborough Cty. Bd. of Cty. Comm’rs, 405 F.3d 1298 (11th Cir. 2005) (Eleventh Amendment immunity extends to suits by a state's own citizens)
- Miccosukee Tribe of Indians v. Fla. State Athletic Comm’n, 226 F.3d 1226 (11th Cir. 2000) (state agencies are protected by Eleventh Amendment immunity)
- Cross v. Alabama, 49 F.3d 1490 (11th Cir. 1995) (Eleventh Amendment exception where state consents or Congress validly abrogates immunity)
- Bouchard Transp. Co. v. Fla. Dep’t of Envtl. Prot., 91 F.3d 1445 (11th Cir. 1996) (Eleventh Amendment immunity treated as a jurisdictional threshold issue)