2006-01-25_Dan_Cole_v._County_of_Hawaii_-_Order_Granting_Defendants_Motions_to_Dismiss

Home

Case 1:05-cv-00325-JMS-BMK Document 35 Filed 01/25/2006 Page 7 of 24 which waived the state's immunity for torts committed by its employees, do not waive the state's Eleventh Amendment immunity). Congress has not abrogated the states' sovereign immunity with respect to §§ 1981, 1983, 1985, and 1986. As the Supreme Court has stated, a federal statute providing a private cause of action does not subject states to suit in federal court unless the statute "explicitly and by clear language indicate[s] on its face an intent to sweep away the immunity of the States." Quern, 440 U.S. at 332. None of these statutes (§§ 1981, 1983, 1985, or 1986) expressly abrogates states' immunity from suit in federal court, and courts have consistently held that the Eleventh Amendment bars these suits against the states. 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, 1985, 1986; see Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 677 (1974) (holding that § 1983 does not override a state's Eleventh Amendment immunity); Cerrato v. San Francisco Cmty. Coll. Dist., 26 F.3d 968, 972, 975 (9th Cir. 1994) (holding that the Eleventh Amendment bars §§ 1983, 1985, and 1986 claims against the states); Mitchell v. Los Angeles Cmty. Coll. Dist., 861 F.2d 198, 201 (9th Cir. 1988) (holding that the Los Angeles Community College District was entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity from the plaintiff's §§ 1981, 1983, and 1985 claims). 7