Cluster 2709547

See McDonough Assoc., Inc. v. Grunloh, 722 F.3d 1043, 1049 (7th Cir. 2013) (“[T]he general rule is that private individuals are unable to sue a state in federal court absent the state’s consent.”).

Kashani v. Purdue Univ., 813 F.2d 843, 845 (7th Cir.1987); see also McDonough Assoc., Inc. v. Grunloh, 722 F.3d 1043, 1049 (7th Cir. 2013) (“[T]he general rule is that private individuals are unable to sue a state in federal court absent the state’s consent”).

McDonough Assoc., Inc. v. Grunloh, 722 F.3d 1043, 1049 (7th Cir. 2013) ("[T]he general rule is that private individuals are unable to sue a state in federal court absent the state's consent").

See Virginia Office for Prot. & Advocacy v. Stewart, 563 U.S. 247 , 255 (2011) (“[The Ex parte Young exception] rests on the premise – less delicately called a ‘fiction,’ – that when a federal court commands a state official to do nothing more than refrain from violating federal law, he is not the State for sovereign-immunity purposes.”) (citation omitted); see also McDonough Assoc., Inc. v. Grunloh, 722 F.3d 1043, 1050 (7th Cir. 2013) (“Ex parte Young employed a chameleon-l…

McDonough Assoc., Inc. v. Grunloh, 722 F.3d 1043, 1049 (7th Cir. 2013) (“[T]he general rule is that private individuals are unable to sue a state in federal court absent the state’s consent”).

See McDonough Assocs., Inc. v. Grunloh, 722 F.3d 1043 , 1050–51 (7th Cir. 2013) (“The Eleventh Amendment was adopted to ensure that such retroactive damages claims would not be heard in federal court absent the state’s consent.”).

See McDonough Assocs., Inc. v. Grunloh, 722 F.3d 1043 , 1050–51 (7th Cir. 2013) (“The Eleventh Amendment was adopted to ensure that such retroactive damages claims would not be heard in federal court absent the state’s consent.”).

Ultimately, courts may not “direct a state to make payments to . . . remedy a past injury to a private party.” McDonough Assocs., Inc. v. Grunloh, 722 F.3d 1043, 1050-51 (7th Cir. 2013).

Id.; See also Virginia Office for Prot. & Advocacy v. Stewart, 563 U.S. 247 , 255 (2011) (“[The Ex parte Young exception] rests on the premise— less delicately called a ‘fiction,’—that when a federal court commands a state official to do nothing more than refrain from violating federal law, he is not the State for sovereign- immunity purposes.”) (citation omitted)); McDonough Assoc., Inc. v. Grunloh, 722 F.3d 1043, 1050 (7th Cir. 2013).

Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44, 54 (1996); McDonough Associates, Inc. v. Grunloh, 722 F.3d 1043, 1049 (7th Cir. 2013).

Id.; See also Virginia Office for Prot. & Advocacy v. Stewart, 563 U.S. 247 , 255 (2011) (“[The Ex parte Young exception] rests on the premise – less delicately called a ‘fiction,’ – that when a federal court commands a state official to do nothing more than refrain from violating federal law, he is not the State for sovereign-immunity purposes.”) (citation omitted); McDonough Assoc., Inc. v. Grunloh, 722 F.3d 1043, 1050 (7th Cir. 2013).

McDonough Associates, Inc. v. Grunloh, 722 F.3d 1043, 1049 (7th Cir. 2013).

In fact, Ex parte Young is based on the "reasoning that when a state official violates [federal law], that official is stripped of his official or representative character." McDonough Assocs., Inc. v. Grunloh, 722 F.3d 1043, 1050 (7th Cir. 2013).

As a “general rule,” private individuals “are unable to sue a state in federal court absent the state’s consent.” McDonough Assocs., Inc. v. Grunloh, 722 F.3d 1043, 1049 (7th Cir. 2013).

McDonough Assocs. v. Grunloh, 722 F.3d 1043, 1050 (7th Cir. 2013) (explaining that the Ex parte Young exception to the Eleventh Amendment bar on suing states in banning registrants from living too close to day cares.

While Plaintiff may bring suit against state officials in their official capacity for injunctive relief, see Lundeen, 991 F. Supp. 2d at 1017 , here, there is no request for relief that can be “properly characterized as prospective,” McDonough Assocs., Inc. v. Grunloh, 722 F.3d 1043, 1051 (7th Cir. 2013), because the complaint seeks only monetary damages.

See id. at 159-60 ; Driftless Area Land Conservancy v. Valcq, 16 F.4th 508, 521 (7th Cir. 2021) (explaining that Ex parte Young “applies only when a plaintiff seeks prospective relief against an ongoing violation of federal law,” adding that “[i]njunctive relief is prospective relief” while “monetary damages to remedy past harms” is not) (citing Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. 261, 281 (1997)); McDonough Assocs., Inc. v. Grunloh, 722 F.3d 1043, 1050-51 (7th C…

See id. at 159- 60; Driftless Area Land Conservancy v. Valcq, 16 F.4th 508, 521 (7th Cir. 2021) (explaining that “Ex parte Young … applies only when a plaintiff seeks prospective relief against an ongoing violation of federal law,” and that, while “[i]njunctive relief is prospective relief …[,] monetary damages to remedy past harms” is not) (citing Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. 261, 281 (1997)); McDonough Assocs., Inc. v. Grunloh, 722 F.3d 1043, 1050-51 (7t…

As a “general rule,” private individuals “are unable to sue a state in federal court absent the state’s consent.” McDonough Assocs., Inc. v. Grunloh, 722 F.3d 1043, 1049 (7th Cir. 2013).

Due to the Eleventh Amendment, “the general rule is that private individuals are unable to sue a state in federal court absent the state’s consent.” McDonough Assoc., Inc. v. Grunloh, 722 F.3d 1043, 1049 (7th Cir. 2013).

McDonough Assocs., Inc. v. Grunloh, 722 F.3d 1043, 1050 (7th Cir. 2013) (noting that courts may not “direct a state to make payments to resolve a private debt or remedy a past injury to a private party”).

Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 277 (1986) "[T]he Ex parte Young exception is focused on cases in which a violation of federal law by a state official is ongoing as opposed to cases in which federal law has been violated at one time."); McDonough Associates, Inc. v. Grunloh 722 F.3d 1043, 1050 (7th Cir. 2013) ([C]ourts may enjoin ongoing behavior by state officials that violates federal law.") Accordingly, to the extent Plaintiff's complaint seeks injunctive relief against …

Id. at 1045.

Comm’n of Md., 535 U.S. 635, 636 (2002) (quoting Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. 261, 296 (1997); McDonough Assocs., Inc. v. Grunloh, 722 F.3d 1043, 1051 (7th Cir. 2013)).

Accordingly, John Doe's Fourteenth Amendment due process claim is barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.6 McDonough Assocs., Inc. v. Grunloh, 722 F.3d 1043, 1049 (7th 6 IU also argues that John Doe's Fourteenth Amendment due process, breach of contract, and negligence claims fail for lack of evidence.

He names only the State of Indiana and the IDOC and not any state officials charged with implementing or decision-making under SORA.7 Moreover, “[i]n determining whether the doctrine of Ex parte Young avoids an Eleventh Amendment bar to suit, a court need only conduct a ‘straightforward inquiry into whether [the] complaint alleges an ongoing violation of federal law and seeks relief properly characterized as prospective.’” McDonough Assocs., Inc. v. Grunloh, 722 F.3d 1043, 1…

McDonough Associates, Inc. v. Grunloh, 722 F.3d 1043, 1049-50 (7th Cir. 2013) (citing Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908)).

“Ex parte Young recognized what has become one of several well-established exceptions to the Eleventh Amendment bar on suing states in federal court, permitting private citizens to sue state officials in their official capacities to require them to comply with federal law on an ongoing basis.” McDonough Assocs., Inc. v. Grunloh, 722 F.3d 1043, 1049 (7th Cir. 2013). “‘In determining whether the doctrine of Ex parte Young avoids an Eleventh Amendment bar to suit, a court need …

McDonough Assocs., Inc. v. Grunloh, 722 F.3d 1043, 1049 (7th Cir. 2013); see also Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. at 155-56, 160 .

(R. 72, Resp. at 13-15.) In determining whether the doctrine of Ex parte Young applies, "a court need only conduct a straightforward inquiry into whether the complaint alleges an ongoing violation of federal law and seeks relief properly characterized as prospective." McDonough Assocs. , 722 F.3d at 1051 (internal quotation marks and alterations *608 omitted); Council 31 , 680 F.3d at 882 .

McDonough Associates, Inc. , 722 F.3d at 1053 (court ordered payment of debt to private party from state treasury violates Eleventh Amendment).

McDonough Associates, Inc. v. Grunloh, 722 F.3d 1043, 1050 (7th Cir. 2013).

Although such official capacity actions are permissible under Section 1983 when injunctive relief is requested, the Eleventh Amendment “bars federal courts from ordering the state to disburse funds to a private party for retroactive damages.” McDonough Assocs., Inc. v. Grunloh, 722 F.3d 1043, 1051 (7th Cir. 2013).

Put another way, “Ex Parte Young employed a chameleon-like legal fiction, reasoning that when a state official violates the federal Constitution, that official is ‘stripped of his official or representative character’ and thus also of any immunity defense.” McDonough Associates, Inc. v. Grunloh, 722 F.3d 1043, 1050 (7th Cir. 2013) (quoting Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. at 160 , 28 S.Ct. 441 ).

Seminole No. 15‐2800 3 Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44, 54 (1996); McDonough As‐ sociates, Inc. v. Grunloh, 722 F.3d 1043, 1049 (7th Cir. 2013).

Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44, 54 , 116 S.Ct. 1114 , 134 L.Ed.2d 252 (1996); McDonough Associates, Inc. v. Grunloh, 722 F.3d 1043, 1049 (7th Cir.2013).

Courts “may not, however, direct a state to make payments to resolve a private debt or to remedy a past injury to a private party. ” Id. at 1050-51 (emphasis added).

But the current state’s attorney, not the state itself, is the proper defendant under Young , which “permit[s] private citizens to sue state officials in their official capacities to require them to comply with federal law on an ongoing basis.” McDonough Assocs., Inc. v. Grunloh, 722 F.3d 1043, 1049 (7th Cir.2013) (emphasis added).

This well-established exception to the Eleventh Amendment bar allows “private citizens to sue state officials in their official capacities [in federal court] to require them to comply with federal law on an ongoing basis.” McDonough Associates, Inc. v. Grunloh, 722 F.3d 1043, 1049 (7th Cir.2013).

“In determining whether the doctrine of Ex parte Young avoids an Eleventh Amendment bar to suit, a court need only conduct a ‘straightforward inquiry into whether [the] complaint alleges an ongoing violation of federal law and seeks relief properly characterized as prospective.’ ” McDonough Associates, Inc. v. Grunloh, 722 F.3d 1043, 1051 (7th Cir.2013) (quoting Verizon Maryland Inc. v. Public Service Comm’n of Maryland, 535 U.S. 635, 645 , 122 S.Ct. 1753 , 152 L.Ed.2d 871 (…

See McDonough Assocs., Inc. v. Grunloh, 722 F.3d 1043, 1049 (7th Cir. 2013).

See McDonough Associates, Inc. v. Grunloh, 722 F.3d 1043, 1049 (7th Cir. 2013) (“Ex parte Young recognized what has become one of several well-established exceptions to the Eleventh Amendment bar on suing states in federal court, permitting private citizens to sue state officials in their official capacities to require them to comply with federal law on an ongoing basis.”).

See McDonough Assocs., Inc. v. Grunloh, 722 F.3d 1043 (7th Cir. 2013).

See McDonough Assocs. v. Grunloh, 722 F.3d 1043 , 1050–51 (7th Cir. 2013) (explaining that courts cannot “direct a state to make payments … to remedy a past injury to a private party”); MSA Realty Corp. v. Illinois, 990 F.2d 288, 291 (7th Cir. 1993) (“The [E]leventh [A]mendment bar extends to suits for money damages against state officials sued in their official capacities … .”).

See McDonough Assocs, Inc. v. Grumloh, 722 F.3d 1043 (7th Cir. 2013); Kemp v. Liebel, 877 F.3d 346, 350 (7th Cir. 2017).

See McDonough Associates, Inc. v. Grunloh, 722 F.3d 1043, 1049 (7th Cir. 2013), ("[T]he general rule is that private individuals are unable to sue a state in federal court absent the state's consent.").

See McDonough Assoc., Inc. v. Grunloh, 722 F.3d 1043, 1049 (7th Cir. 2013).

See McDonough Assocs., Inc. v. Grunloh, 722 F.3d 1043, 1051 (7th Cir. 2013) ("In determining whether the doctrine of Ex parte Young avoids an Eleventh Amendment bar to suit, a court need only conduct a 'straightforward inquiry into whether [the] complaint alleges an ongoing violation of federal law and seeks relief properly characterized as prospective.'").

See McDonough Assocs., Inc. v. Grunloh, 722 F.3d 1043, 1051 (7th Cir. 2013) ("In determining whether the doctrine of Ex parte Young avoids an Eleventh Amendment bar to suit, a court need only conduct a 'straightforward inquiry into whether [the] complaint alleges an ongoing violation of federal law and seeks relief properly characterized as prospective.'").

See McDonough Assocs., Inc. v. Grunloh, 722 F.3d 1043, 1049-50 (7th Cir. 2013).