Hubert Frank Ford v. Pamela J. Bondi, et al.

Civil Action No. 3:25-CV-063-CHB (E.D. Ky. May 8, 2026) · United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, Central Division · May 8, 2026 · No. 3:25-CV-063-CHB

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky addresses motions to dismiss Hubert Frank Ford’s challenge to the constitutionality of Kentucky’s firearm-possession prohibition as applied to him. The court denies the first motion to dismiss as moot because an amended complaint superseded the original, and grants the second motion. It concludes that Ford lacks a sufficient basis to invoke the Ex parte Young exception against Kentucky’s Attorney General because the Attorney General lacks a sufficiently direct and imminent enforcement connection to the challenged statute, and the court therefore does not reach the merits.

Holdings

  1. The Eleventh Amendment barred Ford’s official-capacity claims against Kentucky Attorney General Russell Coleman because Ford did not allege that Coleman had enforced or threatened to enforce Kentucky Revised Statutes § 527.040(1), and Coleman lacked the required special relation to or express enforcement responsibility for that statute.
  2. Ford lacked standing because he alleged no injury caused by Coleman that would be redressed by an order against Coleman.
  3. Coleman’s first motion to dismiss the original complaint was moot because Ford’s amended complaint superseded the original complaint.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Ford had standing to seek declaratory and injunctive relief against the Kentucky Attorney General based on an alleged future enforcement of Kentucky Revised Statutes § 527.040(1).
  2. Whether the Eleventh Amendment barred Ford’s official-capacity claims against the Kentucky Attorney General because the Ex parte Young exception did not apply.
  3. Whether Coleman’s contingent and discretionary authority under Kentucky Revised Statutes §§ 15.020, 15.190, 15.200, and 418.075, and 28 U.S.C. § 2403(b), constituted a sufficient enforcement connection for the Ex parte Young exception.
  4. Whether Coleman’s first motion to dismiss the original complaint became moot after Ford filed an amended complaint.

Disposition

dismissed

Cases Cited (32)

  • ComputerEase Software, Inc. v. Hemisphere Corp., 2007 WL 852103 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 19, 2007)(followed)
  • Wright v. Memphis Light, Gas & Water Division, 2012 WL 3683484 (W.D. Tenn. Aug. 24, 2012)(followed)
  • Kentucky Press Association, Inc. v. Kentucky, 355 F. Supp. 2d 853 (E.D. Ky. 2005)(followed)
  • United States v. Hubert Frank Ford, No. 5:97-CR-35-KSF (E.D. Ky. 1997)(relied upon)
  • Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009)(followed)
  • Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007)(followed)
  • Gavitt v. Born, 835 F.3d 623 (6th Cir. 2016)(followed)
  • Jelovsek v. Bredesen, 545 F.3d 431 (6th Cir. 2008)(followed)
  • Zurich Insurance Co. v. Logitrans, Inc., 297 F.3d 528 (6th Cir. 2002)(followed)
  • Gentek Building Products, Inc. v. Sherwin-Williams Co., 491 F.3d 320 (6th Cir. 2007)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 32.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…