Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Buy This Entire Record For
Dean Stone, Michael Kraycinovich, and Tracy Jones v. John T. Pepmeyer et al
April 28, 2011
DEAN STONE, MICHAEL KRAYCINOVICH, AND TRACY JONES, PLAINTIFFS,
JOHN T. PEPMEYER ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Byron G. Cudmore United States Magistrate Judge
Thursday, 28 April, 2011 04:09:01 PM Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
BEFORE U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE BYRON CUDMORE:
The remaining parties in this case-Plaintiffs and Defendants John T. Pepmeyer and Knox County-have filed an agreed motion to name the State of Illinois as a necessary party pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19. However, the State does not so agree, and Eleventh Amendment immunity protects it from being compelled to do so. Accordingly, the motion will be denied.
The parties assert that the State has refused to participate in
settlement discussions because it is not a party to this lawsuit,
impede the Plaintiffs' ability to obtain complete relief and may leave
John Pepmeyer and Knox County at risk of incurring double and/or
inconsistent obligations due to the two other proceedings currently
pending based on the same set of facts." (d/e 97, p. 1).*fn1
They argue that the State is a necessary party because under
state law "it should indemnify any judgment in this case and/or may be
otherwise financially responsible." Id. They contend that settlement
attempts have been unsuccessful in part because of the State's refusal
to participate. (d/e 97, p. 3).
These difficulties, though, cannot get the parties around the State's Eleventh Amendment immunity. The State has already been dismissed as a party in part because of that immunity. (d/e 26, Judge Mihm's Order adopting this Court's Report and Recommendation, p. 10). And, Plaintiffs have already conceded that the Eleventh Amendment bars their § 1983 claims against the State. (d/e 19, p.10).
The parties assert that Eleventh Amendment immunity does not bar injunctive or prospective relief against the State, which is true as a general statement of law, but they do not explain what injunctive or prospective relief they seek against the State. Plaintiffs do not seek prospective relief against the State. They want to bring the State's purse to the table to pay a settlement or judgment, which directly implicates the Eleventh Amendment. *fn2 See Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 663 (1974)("a suit by private parties seeking to impose a liability which must be paid from public funds in the state treasury is barred by the Eleventh Amendment."); Porco v. Trustees of Indiana University, 453 F.3d 390, 395 (7th Cir. 2006) (suit against state for monetary compensation barred by Eleventh Amendment). The parties hypothesize that the State ...
Buy This Entire Record For