Mischler v. Pence
Civil Action No. 2020-1863
| D.D.C. | Apr 7, 2022Background
- Pro se plaintiff Amy Mischler filed suit in 2020 alleging a broad conspiracy involving eleven defendants (including former Vice President Pence, former AG Barr, two governors, federal judges/agents, and private counsel) arising from assorted grievances (e.g., an Executive Order on "Safe Policing," Kentucky Medicare waivers, Sixth Circuit rule changes, an alleged placement on a Kentucky child-abuser list, and elder-care court decisions).
- Earlier in the litigation the court granted motions to dismiss certain defendants (including lawyer Christy Van Tatenhove and federal defendants), leaving only former Kentucky Governor Matt Bevin and Florida Governor Ron DeSantis as remaining defendants.
- The Complaint was sprawling and repetitive; Mischler used duplicated paragraph numbering and many allegations were indecipherable or irrelevant to cognizable federal claims.
- Mischler pleaded virtually no facts specific to DeSantis (only a single mention) and alleged opaque claims against Bevin that failed to state clear causes of action or invoke federal jurisdiction.
- The court found the Complaint deficient under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) and concluded that Eleventh Amendment state-sovereign immunity barred official-capacity claims absent a waiver.
- The court dismissed the claims against Bevin and DeSantis without prejudice and, because they were the only remaining defendants, dismissed the action without prejudice. (Mem. Op. dated April 7, 2022, Judge Tanya S. Chutkan.)
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Complaint satisfies Rule 8(a) pleading requirements | Mischler alleges a conspiracy and assorted harms tied to many actors and events | Complaint is indecipherable, lacks short/plain statements and specific facts as to individual defendants (esp. DeSantis) | Dismissed for failure to satisfy Rule 8(a) |
| Whether Eleventh Amendment bars suit against state officials in federal court | Mischler did not allege any state waiver of immunity or federal statutory override | States (and state officers sued in official capacity) are immune absent waiver | Claims alleging official-capacity relief barred by Eleventh Amendment; plaintiff failed to show waiver; dismissal warranted |
| Whether the case should be dismissed entirely given the remaining defendants | Mischler seeks relief against remaining state governors | Only Bevin and DeSantis remained; claims against them are deficient or barred | Because remaining claims dismissed, the court dismissed the action without prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (Rule 8 pleading standard and plausibility framework)
- Ciralsky v. CIA, 355 F.3d 661 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (Rule 8 notice-pleading principles in D.C. Circuit)
- Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497 (D.D.C. 1977) (Rule 8 ensures defendants receive fair notice of claims)
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (1994) (federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction requiring pleadings to show jurisdiction)
- Khadr v. United States, 529 F.3d 1112 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (party asserting jurisdiction bears burden to demonstrate it exists)
- Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651 (1974) (Eleventh Amendment sovereign-immunity principles and limitations on federal relief against states)
- Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1 (1890) (Eleventh Amendment applies to suits by citizens against their own states)