Reybol v. California Department of Water Resources

Background

Arcelio Joseph Reybol, representing himself, sued the California Department of Water Resources, Paulina Johnson, the “California EPA,” and the “California PUC.” The complaint appears to relate to Reybol’s unsuccessful application for a job with the Department of Water Resources. The court stated that the complaint was difficult to follow and did not make clear how the other defendants were involved.

Reybol paid the filing fee but did not submit a proposed summons. As a result, no summons was issued and he had not validly served the defendants. The court explained that service of a summons and the original complaint generally must follow Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and cannot ordinarily be completed by email. Although more than 90 days had passed, the court allowed additional time for service if Reybol could establish federal subject-matter jurisdiction. The court stayed the service deadline while the jurisdiction issue was being resolved.

Subject-Matter Jurisdiction

Federal courts may hear only cases within their subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning their legal authority to decide the dispute. The court considered two possible bases.

First, Reybol did not assert diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. That type of jurisdiction generally requires every plaintiff to be a citizen of a different state from every defendant and more than $75,000 to be in dispute. Based on the complaint and Reybol’s statements at a case-management conference, the court concluded that complete diversity did not appear to exist.

Second, although Reybol checked the box for federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the complaint did not identify a federal law or federal legal right supporting the case. The complaint referred to “1206669889 Sun Devil Arizona State University ‘Invested by Law’” and made unclear references to the Constitution. The court stated that it was not clear whether Reybol intended to assert a claim under the U.S. Constitution or any federal statute.

The court noted that some hiring-related claims can involve federal employment-discrimination laws, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or the Americans with Disabilities Act. But Reybol did not allege discrimination, identify a protected class, or otherwise explain a federal claim. The court also stated that the complaint was difficult to understand and appeared to lack enough substance to establish jurisdiction, particularly as to claims against Johnson, the California EPA, and the California PUC.

State-Agency Immunity

The court separately explained that the California Department of Water Resources, the California EPA, and the California PUC are state agencies. The Eleventh Amendment generally prevents an unconsenting state or its agencies from being sued in federal court. The court found no indication that California had consented to these suits and could not determine whether Congress had removed that immunity for any claim Reybol intended to bring. It therefore ordered Reybol to explain why claims against those agencies should not be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction based on Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Order

The court ordered Reybol to file by February 23, 2024, either a response arguing that his existing complaint adequately established subject-matter jurisdiction or an amended complaint addressing the identified defects. Any amended complaint had to include all relevant facts and legal claims, the case caption and number, and the words “FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT” on its first page; it could not simply refer back to the original complaint.

The order did not dismiss the case. It stated that if Reybol failed to file a response or amended complaint, or failed to establish a valid jurisdictional basis, the case would be reassigned to a district judge with a recommendation that it be dismissed.