Wright v. State

• Decision Date: 17 March 2014
• Docket Number: No. 5:13–CV–607–BO.,5:13–CV–607–BO.
• Citation: 975 F.Supp.2d 539
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of North Carolina
• Parties: Calla WRIGHT, et al., Plaintiffs, v. The State of NORTH CAROLINA, and The Wake County Board of Elections, Defendants.

975 F.Supp.2d 539

Calla WRIGHT, et al., Plaintiffs,

v.The State of NORTH CAROLINA, and The Wake County Board of Elections, Defendants.

No. 5:13–CV–607–BO.

United States District Court,

E.D. North Carolina,

Western Division.

Signed March 14, 2014.

Filed March 17, 2014.

Anita S. Earls, Allison Jean Riggs, Southern Coalition for Social Justice, Durham, NC, for Plaintiffs.

Alexander McClure Peters, N.C. Department of Justice, Kenneth R. Murphy, III, Roger A. Askew, Scott Wood Warren, Claire Alise Hunter, Raleigh, NC, for Defendants.

ORDER

TERRENCE W. BOYLE, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on defendant State of North Carolina's motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) [DE 29], defendant Wake County Board of Elections' motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) [DE 27], and plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a). The motions are ripe for adjudication. For the reasons stated herein, defendant State of North Carolina's motion to dismiss is GRANTED, defendant Wake County Board of Elections' motion to dismiss is GRANTED, and plaintiff's motion to amend is DENIED AS FUTILE.

BACKGROUND

Thirteen individual citizens of Wake County, North Carolina and two associations of citizens initiated this action by filing, through counsel, a complaint on August 22, 2013. The complaint asserts claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for defendants' alleged violation of plaintiffs' equal protection rights under both the United States and North Carolina Constitutions resulting from the North Carolina General Assembly's enactment of S.L.2013–110, a local bill implementing a new redistricting plan for electing members of the Wake County School Board. Plaintiffs' complaint seeks relief in the form of a declaratory judgment and a preliminary, mandatory injunction requiring the defendants to conduct lawful elections for the Wake County Board of Education using an election method and districting system which complies with the requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 1, § 19 of the North Carolina Constitution.

DISCUSSION

I. THIS COURT'S JURISDICTION OVER THE STATE.

The State of North Carolina has moved to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), claiming that this Court lacks jurisdiction over the State in this case because the State has immunity under the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution. [DE 29]. It is firmly established in Supreme Court precedent that “a State may not be sued in federal court by one of its own citizens.” California v. Deep Sea Research, 523 U.S. 491, 501, 118 S.Ct. 1464, 140 L.Ed.2d 626 (1998); see also Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1, 10 S.Ct. 504, 33 L.Ed. 842 (1890). Plaintiff named the State as a defendant with the hope that the state would consent to federal jurisdiction and waive its immunity. [DE 35 at 21]; Lapides v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. Syst. of Ga., 535 U.S. 613, 619, 122 S.Ct. 1640, 152 L.Ed.2d 806 (2002). However, as the State has raised Eleventh Amendment immunity as a defense, plaintiffs agree that their claim cannot proceed against the state. [DE 35 at 21]; [DE 33]. This Court lacks jurisdiction over the State here and therefore defendant State of North Carolina's motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) is granted.

II. PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO AMEND.

Recognizing that the State has Eleventh Amendment immunity to suit here, plaintiffs seek to amend their complaint by dropping the State as a defendant and adding North Carolina Governor Patrick McCrory, North Carolina Senate President Pro Tern Phil Berger, and North Carolina House Speaker Thorn Tillis as defendants in their official capacities. [DE 33].

Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a), “a party may amend the party's pleadings only by leave of court or by written consent of the parties; and leave to amend a complaint shall be freely given when justice so requires.” “[L]eave to amend a pleading should be denied only when the amendment would be prejudicial to the opposing party, there has been bad faith on the part of the moving party, or the amendment would have been futile.” Laber v. Harvey, 438 F.3d 404, 426 (4th Cir.2006) (en banc) (citations and quotations omitted). A proposed amendment is futile when “it advances a claim or defense that is legally insufficient on its face.” Joyner v. Abbott Labs., 674 F.Supp. 185, 190 (E.D.N.C.1987). In this instance, plaintiffs' amendment would be futile.

Courts have consistently permitted suits against state actors as a way of enjoining a state from unconstitutional action. Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 159–60, 28 S.Ct. 441, 52 L.Ed. 714 (1908). However, “[i]n making an officer of the State a party defendant in a suit to enjoin the enforcement of an act alleged to be unconstitutional it is plain that such officer must have some connection with the enforcement of the act.” Id. at 157, 28 S.Ct. 441. Here, as in Fitts v. McGhee, none of the individual parties named in the proposed amended complaint “have been charged by law with any special duty” in connection with Session Law 2013–110. 172 U.S. 516, 529, 19 S.Ct. 269, 43 L.Ed. 535 (1899).

In North Carolina, the State Board of Elections has general supervision over elections in the state. N.C. Gen.Stat. § 162–22(a). The State Board of Elections appoints all members of the county boards of elections and advises them as to the proper methods of conducting elections. N.C. Gen.Stat. § 163–22(c). The county boards of elections oversee the elections occurring in their counties. N.C. Gen.Stat. § 163–33. It is clear from this review of North Carolina law that the enforcement of Session Law 2013–110 falls to the Wake County Board of Elections. No enforcement power of the law resides within the Governor, the House Speaker, or the Senate President Pro Tern. To enjoin the implementation of this law, the Court would need only to issue an injunction against the Wake County Board of Elections. No other parties are involved with the implementation and enforcement of Session Law 2013–110 and therefore no other parties are proper defendants to this suit even under the Ex Parte Young doctrine.

Plaintiffs claim that if the State officers are not part of this suit in their official capacities, there is no mechanism to force a constitutionally valid districting plan to be created in the event the implementation of Session Law 2013–110 is enjoined. However, North Carolina has provisions for such an instance that would ensure valid elections could be held. In the event any State election law or form of election of any local board of education is held unconstitutional or invalid by a federal court, the State Board of Elections has authority to make “reasonable interim rules and regulations with respect to the pending primary or election as it deems advisable.” N.C. Gen.Stat. § 163–22.2. Further, the local board of education is not to revise district boundaries after the General Assembly has ratified an act establishing district boundaries until a new federal census is taken “except that the board may make an earlier revision of district boundaries ... if it must do so to comply with a court order.” N.C. Gen.Stat. § 115C–37(i).

Because the Governor, House Speaker, and Senate President Pro Tern are not proper parties in this suit, an amendment that casts them as defendants would be futile. Accordingly, plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend their complaint is denied.

III. DEFENDANTS' 12(b)(6) MOTION TO DISMISS.

Defendant Wake County Board of Education has moved to dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). A Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted challenges the legal sufficiency of a plaintiff's complaint. Francis v. Giacomelli, 588 F.3d 186, 192 (4th Cir.2009). When ruling on the motion, the court “must accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93–94, 127 S.Ct. 2197, 167 L.Ed.2d 1081 (2007) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555–56, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)). Although complete and detailed factual allegations are not required, “a plaintiff's obligation to provide the ‘grounds' of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief requires more than labels and conclusions.’ ” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (citations omitted). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955). Similarly, a court need not accept as true a plaintiff's “unwarranted inferences, unreasonable conclusions, or arguments.” Eastern Shore Mkts. v. J.D. Assocs. Ltd., 213 F.3d 175, 180 (4th Cir.2000). A trial court is “not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955. Accordingly, to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a complaint must contain facts sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level” and to satisfy the court that the claim is “plausible on its face.” Id. at 555, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955.

Defendants argue that plaintiffs' complaint fails to state a claim for which relief may be granted for two reasons. First, they argue that the population deviations between the challenged districts are de minimis under both United States Supreme Court and North Carolina Supreme Court precedent. Second, they argue that plaintiffs' complaint states a claim for political gerrymandering which is a nonjusticiable political question.

A. Fourteenth Amendment Claim.

In Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 82 S.Ct. 691, 7 L.Ed.2d 663 (1962), Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 84 S.Ct. 1362, 12 L.Ed.2d 506 (1964), and their progeny, the Supreme Court held that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States...