Background
Robert L. Allum appealed pro se from a district court judgment dismissing his Section one thousand nine hundred eighty-three action. The action alleged due process and other claims related to his workers’ compensation benefits against the State of Montana and the Montana State Fund.
The court’s reasoning
The panel reviewed the dismissal de novo under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure twelve comma six. The court found the district court properly dismissed the action as barred by issue preclusion. The issues of whether the Montana State Fund is an arm of the state and whether Montana had consented to suit in federal court were actually litigated and decided in Allum’s prior federal court action. The court noted that the Eleventh Amendment bars suits against the State or its agencies for all types of relief absent unequivocal consent by the state. The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the complaint without leave to amend because amendment would have been futile.
The Eleventh Amendment bars suits against the State or its agencies for all types of relief, absent unequivocal consent by the state.
Jensen v. Brown, 131 F.4th 677, 696 (9th Cir. 2025)
What it means going forward
This decision reinforces the application of issue preclusion in Section one thousand nine hundred eighty-three cases where the core issues regarding state immunity and consent to suit have already been resolved in prior litigation.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download