From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Long v. Van de Kamp

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Apr 7, 1992
961 F.2d 151 (9th Cir. 1992)

Summary

holding that state attorney general was not proper party where there was no real likelihood that he would enforce his supervisory powers against the plaintiffs' interest

Summary of this case from Lytle v. Griffith

Opinion

No. 91-55834.

Argued and Submitted March 4, 1992.

Decided April 7, 1992.

Robert David Breton, Deputy Atty. Gen., Los Angeles, Cal., for defendant-appellant.

Phillip Long, in pro per.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

Before: HUG and PREGERSON, Circuit Judges, and PECKHAM, Senior District Judge.

Hon. Robert F. Peckham, Senior United States District Judge for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation.


The facts are stated in the district court's opinion which is reported at 772 F. Supp. 1141 (C.D.Cal. 1991). The district court concluded that the Eleventh Amendment did not stand as a bar to its jurisdiction over this case. Id. at 1143. However, under Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 28 S.Ct. 441, 52 L.Ed. 714 (1908), there must be a connection between the official sued and enforcement of the allegedly unconstitutional statute, and there must be a threat of enforcement. We doubt that the general supervisory powers of the California Attorney General are sufficient to establish the connection with enforcement required by Ex parte Young. See Southern Pacific Transportation Co. v. Brown, 651 F.2d 613, 614 (9th Cir. 1981) (as amended) (Oregon Attorney General's power to direct and advise, which was not binding on district attorneys who had independent duty to enforce state law, was not sufficiently connected with enforcement). Moreover, there is no threat that Cal.Vehicle Code § 2805(a) will be enforced by the Attorney General. Absent a real likelihood that the state official will employ his supervisory powers against plaintiffs' interests, the Eleventh Amendment bars federal court jurisdiction.

The lack of threatened enforcement by the Attorney General also means that the "case or controversy" requirement of Article III is not satisfied. The Attorney General has not in any way indicated that he intends to enforce section 2805(a). In addition, the searches of plaintiffs' premises were not the result of any action attributable or traceable to the Attorney General. Consequently, an injunction against the Attorney General will not forestall such future searches of plaintiffs' property because there is no indication that the Attorney General intends to pursue, or encourage local law enforcement agencies to pursue, such searches under section 2805(a). See Simon v. Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights Org., 426 U.S. 26, 38-41, 96 S.Ct. 1917, 1924-26, 48 L.Ed.2d 450 (1976).

Accordingly, we vacate the district court's order and remand with instructions to dismiss this case.


Summaries of

Long v. Van de Kamp

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Apr 7, 1992
961 F.2d 151 (9th Cir. 1992)

holding that state attorney general was not proper party where there was no real likelihood that he would enforce his supervisory powers against the plaintiffs' interest

Summary of this case from Lytle v. Griffith

holding that the "connection must be fairly direct; a generalized duty to enforce state law or general supervisory power over the persons responsible for enforcing the challenged provision will not subject an official to suit"

Summary of this case from Jevons v. Inslee

holding that "the general supervisory powers of the California Attorney General" were not sufficient "to establish the connection with enforcement required by Ex parte Young"

Summary of this case from Snell v. Brown

holding no case or controversy existed between plaintiffs and the Attorney General of California where the Attorney General did not "intend[] to pursue, or encourage local law enforcement agencies to pursue" vehicle searches authorized by the challenged statute

Summary of this case from Associated Oregon Industries v. Avakian

concluding that the Eleventh Amendment bars federal court jurisdiction over an action against the California Attorney General "[a]bsent a real likelihood that the state official will employ his supervisory powers against plaintiffs' interests"

Summary of this case from Doe v. U.S. Attorney General

doubting that the "general supervisory powers" of the California attorney general present a sufficient connection to the enforcement of a search and seizure statute

Summary of this case from Planned Parenthood of Idaho, Inc. v. Wasden

stating that Ex Parte Young requires both a connection with enforcement and a threat of enforcement

Summary of this case from Culinary Workers Union v. Del Papa

instructing the district court to dismiss an attorney general on Eleventh Amendment grounds, after finding no "real likelihood" that he would employ his supervisory powers against the plaintiffs' interest

Summary of this case from Children's Healthcare; Inc. v. Deters

requiring "a connection between the official sued and enforcement of the allegedly unconstitutional statute [and also] a threat of enforcement" (citing Young)

Summary of this case from Children's Healthcare; Inc. v. Deters

explaining that prospective relief may be sought against a state official if that official has a sufficient connection to the challenged statute or provision

Summary of this case from Dariano v. Morgan Hill Unified Sch. Dist.

dismissing an action against the attorney general because plaintiff's injury from an illegal search did not result from any action attributable to the officer

Summary of this case from Back v. Carter
Case details for

Long v. Van de Kamp

Case Details

Full title:PHILLIP LONG, DAVID WOOD, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES, v. JOHN VAN de KAMP…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Apr 7, 1992

Citations

961 F.2d 151 (9th Cir. 1992)

Citing Cases

Cummings v. Harris

The Ninth Circuit, in interpreting and applying the principle of Ex parte Young has consistently policed the…

California Teachers Ass'n v. Davis

"Absent a real likelihood that the state official will employ his supervisory powers against plaintiffs'…