Bryan C. Zesiger and Gina Montalbano aka Gina Montablano Zesiger v. Laura Kelly, Governor of the State of Kansas, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Kansas grants the State Defendants’, County Defendants’, and Senator Jerry Moran’s motions to dismiss a pro se civil rights action concerning the classification of a winery as commercial property and the imposition of a special use permit. The court concludes that claims against state agencies and officials are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity and that the Ex parte Young exception does not apply. It also dismisses several federal claims as time-barred, dismisses the RICO claim for failure to plead an enterprise and predicate acts, and dismisses state-law claims for failure to comply with the Kansas Tort Claims Act.

Holdings

1. The Eleventh Amendment barred Plaintiffs' claims against Kansas and its agencies, and against state officials sued in their official capacities. Those defendants also were not persons subject to suit for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
2. The Ex parte Young exception did not permit Plaintiffs' claims against the State Defendants because the named officials lacked authority to provide the requested prospective relief or reclassify Plaintiffs' property.
3. Plaintiffs' § 1983 claims for equal protection, due process, First Amendment retaliation, takings, Commerce Clause violations, and declaratory or injunctive relief were barred by Kansas's two-year statute of limitations.
4. Plaintiffs failed to state a RICO claim because they did not adequately allege an enterprise or at least two predicate acts of racketeering activity.
5. Van Parys, Webber, Huntsinger, and Voth were entitled to qualified immunity because Plaintiffs failed to allege their personal participation in the alleged constitutional violations.
6. The court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' Kansas-law claims because Plaintiffs did not allege compliance with the Kansas Tort Claims Act notice requirement.
7. Plaintiffs failed to state a § 1983 conspiracy claim because they alleged no specific facts showing an agreement, concerted action, or an underlying constitutional violation.
8. Plaintiffs failed to state a municipal-liability claim because they identified no underlying constitutional violation and pleaded only conclusory failure-to-train allegations without deliberate indifference.
9. The claims against Senator Moran were dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because the official-capacity claims were barred by sovereign immunity and Plaintiffs identified no waiver.
10. Transfer to the District of Colorado was unavailable under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1404(a) and 1406(a), and Plaintiffs' venue motions were denied as moot after dismissal of the case.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the claims against Kansas, its agencies, and officials sued in their official capacities were barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity and by the rule that states and official-capacity defendants are not persons under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
2. Whether the Ex parte Young exception applied to Plaintiffs' claims for prospective relief against state officials.
3. Whether Plaintiffs' federal constitutional claims were barred by Kansas's two-year statute of limitations for personal-injury actions.
4. Whether Plaintiffs adequately stated a RICO claim.
5. Whether individual County Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiffs' § 1983 claims.
6. Whether Plaintiffs' Kansas-law claims were barred for failure to comply with the Kansas Tort Claims Act notice requirement.
7. Whether Plaintiffs adequately stated conspiracy and municipal-liability claims.
8. Whether claims against Senator Jerry Moran were barred by sovereign immunity and lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
9. Whether venue could be transferred to the District of Colorado under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1404(a) or 1406(a).

Disposition

dismissed