Pecha Ex Rel. Pecha-Weber v. Lake
864 F.3d 1100
| 10th Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Alfred Pecha (97) filed suit seeking declaratory and injunctive relief after Oklahoma officials denied Medicaid eligibility; complaint requested certification of eligibility and payment of benefits back to the application date.
- Pecha was represented by his niece Patty Pecha‑Weber as next friend and attorney‑in‑fact; Pecha died during litigation and Pecha‑Weber was later appointed personal representative of his estate in state court.
- Defendants moved to dismiss on Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity grounds; district court dismissed as moot with some commentary about three months of pre‑application benefits but did not rule on Rule 25 substitution.
- Pecha‑Weber moved in district court to substitute the estate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 25; the district court failed to rule on the substitution and implicitly denied it by dismissing the case.
- On appeal, the Tenth Circuit majority proceeded as if Pecha (the decedent) remained the appellant; Judge Hartz concurred, identifying two technical errors (failure to substitute and failure to appeal the denial) and arguing the court should sua sponte substitute the estate but nevertheless dismiss on Eleventh Amendment grounds.
- Hartz concluded that even with substitution the suit is moot in federal court because any request for retrospective relief (payment of past Medicaid benefits or a declaratory judgment that would have preclusive effect) is barred by the Eleventh Amendment under Green v. Mansour and related precedent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 25 substitution of decedent by estate was required and timely | Estate timely moved under Rule 25; substitution would preserve appellate standing | Objected that death mooted claims and substitution is futile because Eleventh Amendment bars relief | Court (Hartz): District court abused discretion by not addressing/substituting; court should sua sponte substitute, but outcome unchanged on Eleventh Amendment grounds |
| Whether the case is moot because Pecha died | Estate argued prospective relief ancillary to injunction would allow recovery of past benefits and thus avoid mootness | Defendants: death moots prospective relief; any claim for past benefits is retrospective and barred by Eleventh Amendment | Held: Moot for federal relief — no continuing violation exists; retrospective relief barred under Eleventh Amendment per Green |
| Whether a federal court may order retroactive Medicaid benefits or a declaratory judgment that would have preclusive effect | Estate urged that injunction certifying eligibility would permit ancillary recovery of past benefits | Defendants argued such ancillary relief is effectively retrospective monetary relief and barred by Eleventh Amendment | Held: Retroactive monetary relief or declaratory relief that would operate as an end‑run around Eleventh Amendment is not available in federal court (Green controls) |
| Whether the panel may proceed as if decedent remains plaintiff when substitution not perfected | Estate and plaintiffs’ counsel treated estate as party on appeal; defendants did not press substitution issue on appeal | Majority proceeded without addressing substitution; Hartz criticizes treating decedent as party | Held: Proper practice is to substitute estate (sua sponte if necessary); failure to do so is error though it does not change Eleventh Amendment dismissal here |
Key Cases Cited
- Green v. Mansour, 474 U.S. 64 (1985) (retrospective relief and declaratory judgments that amount to retroactive relief are barred by the Eleventh Amendment absent a continuing violation)
- Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908) (federal courts may grant prospective injunctive relief to enjoin continuing state-law violations despite Eleventh Amendment)
- Bush v. Remington Rand, 213 F.2d 456 (2d Cir. 1954) (failure to substitute deceased plaintiff may be waived by defendant; remedy is substitution, not treating decedent as party)
- Copier v. Smith & Wesson Corp., 138 F.3d 833 (10th Cir. 1998) (court may sua sponte substitute parties to correct Rule 25 defects on appeal)
- Tarrant Reg'l Water Dist. v. Sevenoaks, 545 F.3d 906 (10th Cir. 2008) (requests akin to retrospective damages fall outside Ex parte Young and are barred by Eleventh Amendment)