Rusk v. State of Utah
669 F. App'x 954
| 10th Cir. | 2016Background
- Zachary R. E. Rusk, proceeding pro se, sued the Utah Department of Workforce Services alleging tortious interference via discrimination/retaliation for refusing to issue a customized letter for his low‑income housing application.
- Rusk sought damages under the Americans with Disabilities Act and Title VII.
- The district court dismissed the complaint without prejudice for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction, holding the suit was barred by Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity.
- On appeal the Tenth Circuit reviewed whether any exception to state sovereign immunity permitted Rusk’s federal suit.
- The court considered (1) Utah’s consent to suit, (2) Congressional abrogation of immunity under § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, and (3) the Ex parte Young doctrine for prospective relief against state officers.
- The panel affirmed dismissal, declined to address new arguments raised only on appeal, and denied Rusk’s preservation‑of‑evidence motion as better presented to the district court after establishing jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Utah waived Eleventh Amendment immunity | Rusk asserted DWS harmed him and sought damages in federal court | Utah argued it has not consented to federal suits | Held: No waiver; Utah did not consent to suit in federal court |
| Whether Congress validly abrogated state immunity for these claims | Rusk relied on federal statutes (ADA/Title VII) to pursue damages | Utah argued Congress did not clearly abrogate states’ immunity under §5 | Held: No clear congressional abrogation for these claims |
| Whether Ex parte Young permits suit for prospective relief | Rusk sought relief for ongoing violations (alleged discrimination/retaliation) | Utah noted Rusk did not sue state officers in their official capacities or seek prospective relief | Held: Ex parte Young inapplicable — no official‑capacity officer defendants and no prospective relief requested |
| Whether appellate court should consider new issues raised for first time on appeal | Rusk raised additional arguments on appeal | Utah implicitly argued court should not consider issues not raised below | Held: Court declined to address issues not presented to the district court |
Key Cases Cited
- Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651 (recognizing Eleventh Amendment bars suits against states in federal court)
- Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (Eleventh Amendment jurisdictional bar applies regardless of relief sought)
- Dellmuth v. Muth, 491 U.S. 223 (Congress may abrogate state immunity only with unmistakably clear statutory language)
- Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (allows suits against state officers for prospective relief to stop ongoing federal‑law violations)
- Levy v. Kan. Dep’t of Soc. & Rehab. Servs., 789 F.3d 1164 (10th Cir.) (discusses scope of Ex parte Young and Eleventh Amendment principles)
- Muscogee (Creek) Nation v. Pruitt, 669 F.3d 1159 (10th Cir.) (explains Ex parte Young requirements)
- Somerlott v. Cherokee Nation Distrib., Inc., 686 F.3d 1144 (10th Cir.) (court declines to consider issues not raised below)
- Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (pro se filings construed liberally but court will not advocate for pro se litigant)