Eccarius v. United States

Background

Anthony Carl Eccarius, proceeding without a lawyer, sued the United States. The complaint followed a labor grievance Eccarius filed with the National Labor Relations Board in May 2021 and later filings with state agencies, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, federal courts, the Ninth Circuit, and the Supreme Court. The opinion states that those efforts were unsuccessful.

Eccarius asserted three claims: substantive and procedural due process violations under the Fourteenth Amendment, a Tenth Amendment violation, and an Equal Protection Clause violation under the Fourteenth Amendment. He sought declaratory relief, injunctive relief concerning access to a constitutional remedy, and $21 million in nominal damages.

The Government’s Motion

The Government moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), arguing that the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because sovereign immunity barred the suit, and under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing that the complaint failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted.

Sovereign Immunity and Jurisdiction

Sovereign immunity is the principle that the United States cannot be sued without its consent. The court held that Eccarius did not identify an unequivocal waiver of that immunity in his complaint. The statutes and rule he initially cited—28 U.S.C. § 1331, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 83—did not provide the required waiver.

Eccarius relied in his opposition brief on 28 U.S.C. § 1361 and Section 702 of the Administrative Procedure Act, even though he had not cited those provisions in the complaint. The court said it generally should not consider jurisdictional grounds raised for the first time in briefing. It also explained that § 1361 does not waive the United States’ sovereign immunity and that Section 702’s waiver does not cover monetary relief. The court further stated that the complaint did not identify the final agency action needed for Section 702 review and that relief concerning judicial action would exceed that provision’s scope.

The court concluded that sovereign immunity plainly barred the suit at least to the extent Eccarius sought damages. It did not fully address the jurisdictional arguments raised late in the briefing because it found the failure-to-state-a-claim ground sufficient to grant the motion.

Failure to State a Claim

The court held that Eccarius’s claims were not legally cognizable against the United States as pleaded. The Tenth Amendment does not create a private right of action, and the Fourteenth Amendment applies to the states rather than the federal government. Because all three claims rested on the Tenth and Fourteenth Amendments, the complaint failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted.

Disposition

The court granted the Government’s motion to dismiss with leave to amend. Eccarius may file an amended complaint within 45 days of the order. The court stated that it will dismiss the case with prejudice if he does not file an amended complaint within that period.