A. G. MADDEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. VT SUPREME COURT, Defendant-Appellee. -APPEARING, (2nd Cir. 2001)
Linked as:
Text
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER THIS SUMMARY ORDER WILL NOT BE PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REPORTER AND MAY NOT BE CITED AS PRECEDENTIAL AUTHORITY TO THIS OR ANY OTHER COURT, BUT MAY BE CALLED TO THE ATTENTION OF THIS OR ANY OTHER COURT IN A SUBSEQUENT STAGE OF THIS CASE, IN A RELATED CASE, OR IN ANY CASE FOR PURPOSES OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL OR RES JUDICATA.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the United States Courthouse, Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 10th day of December , two thousand and one.
PRESENT:
Hon. John M. Walker, Jr., Chief Judge, Hon. Dennis Jacobs, Hon. Robert D. Sack, Circuit Judges.
JOHN A.G. MADDEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. VT SUPREME COURT, No. 00-9575
Defendant-Appellee.
APPEARING FOR APPELLANT: JOHN A.G. MADDEN, PRO SE, New Haven, VT APPEARING FOR APPELLEE: RONALD A. SHEMS, Assistant Attorney General, State of Vermont, Montpelier, VT Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Vermont (J. Garvan Murtha, Chief Judge).
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of said district court be and it hereby is AFFIRMED.
Plaintiff-appellant John A.G. Madden appeals the November 16, 2000 judgment of the district court dismissing his complaint as barred by the Eleventh Amendment.
On October 11, 2000, plaintiff filed a pro se complaint in the District Court for the District of Vermont alleging that he had been denied due process of law by the Supreme Court of Vermont's denial of his motion for disqualification brought under Vermont Rule of Appellate Procedure 31(e). On November 16, 2000, the district court granted defendant's motion to dismiss and, on December 11, 2000, denied plaintiff's motion for reconsideration. This appeal followed.
This court reviews the district court's grant of a motion to dismiss de novo. See Kalnit v. Eichler, 264 F.3d 131, 137-38
(2d Cir. 2001). It is well settled that "a suit in which [a state's] agencies or departments is named as a defendant is proscribed by the Eleventh Amendment," Pennhurst State School &
Hospital v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100 (1984), in the absence of the state's consent to such suit or congressional authorization of the suit under the Fourteenth Amendment.
McGinty v. New York, 251 F.3d 84, 91 (2d Cir. 2001); see
Defendant-appellee Vermont Supreme Court is an arm of the State of Vermont. See Vt. Const. ch. II, § 4 (establishing the judiciary for the state of Vermont and the Vermont Supreme Court). Congress has not authorized plaintiff to bring suit in this instance and the State of Vermont has not consented to suit in federal court. See Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 12, § 5601(g)
("Nothing in this chapter waives the rights of the state under the Eleventh Amendment of the United States Constitution.").
Accordingly, plaintiff's suit is barred by the Eleventh Amendment.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of said district court be and it hereby is AFFIRMED.
Sponsored links
This document cites
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit - Richard L. Kalnit, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Frank M. Eichler, Robert L. Crandall, Charles P. Russ, Iii, Pierson M. Grieve, Louis A. Simpson, Allan D. Gilmour, Charles M. Lillis, Grant A. Dove, John Slevin, Kathleen A. Cote, Daniel W. Yohannes and Mediaone Group, Inc., Defendants-Appellees., 264 F.3d 131 (2nd Cir. 2001)
- U.S. Supreme Court - Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (1984)
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit - Mary Mcginty, as Administratrix of the Estate of Maureen Nash, and James Nash on Behalf of Themselves and all Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. State of New York, New York State and Local Employees Retirement System, and New York State Department of Taxation and Finance, Defendants-Appellees., 251 F.3d 84 (2nd Cir. 2001)
See other documents that cite the same legislation
