Cangelosi v. Louisiana State

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
CLAYTON CANGELOSI,
Plaintiff
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS 	NO. 25-1592
STATE OF LOUISIANA,
Defendant
SECTION: “E” (3)
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is Defendant the State of Louisiana’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s
amended complaint on the grounds that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and
for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 1 Plaintiff Clayton Cangelosi
filed an opposition. 2 The State of Louisiana filed a reply.3 After considering the law and
the parties’ arguments, the Court finds that the State of Louisiana is entitled to sovereign
immunity and GRANTS the motion to dismiss.
Plaintiff brings this action against the State of Louisiana under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
challenging the constitutionality of recently enacted La. R.S. 32:59 and seeking injunctive
and declaratory relief enjoining the State of Louisiana from enforcing the law.4 Act 288 of
the Louisiana Legislature repealed the state’s prior hands-free law and enacted new
restrictions prohibiting Louisiana citizens from using wireless telecommunications
devices while driving motor vehicles. 5 Plaintiff alleges the statute is unconstitutional
because it violates his First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Specifically, he
1 R. Doc. 26.
2 R. Doc. 32.
3 R. Doc. 33.
4 R. Doc. 11.
5 La. R.S. 32:59.
Case 2:25-cv-01592-SM-EJD Document 34 Filed 10/30/25 Page 1 of 5

2
contends the law is overly restrictive and vague, and the punishment is disproportionate
to conduct he characterizes as harmless. 6
On September 25, 2025, the State of Louisiana filed the motion to dismiss
currently before the Court, arguing it is entitled to sovereign immunity. 7
LEGAL STANDARD
I. 	Rule 12(b)(1) Standard
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, possessing only the authority
expressly granted and conferred by the United States Constitution or by statute. 8 Eleventh
Amendment sovereign immunity deprives federal courts of subject-matter jurisdiction
over actions by citizens against a state.9 A motion to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(1) challenges a federal court’s subject-matter jurisdiction.10 Under Rule
12(b)(1), “[a] case is properly dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction when the
court lacks the statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate the case.” 11 The party
asserting jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing that the district court possesses
subject-matter jurisdiction.12 “[W]hen a federal court concludes that it lacks subject
matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the complaint in its entirety.” 13 “When a Rule
12(b)(1) motion is filed in conjunction with other Rule 12 motions, the court should
6 R. Doc. 11.
7 R. Doc. 26.
8 Howery v. Allstate Ins. Co., 243 F.3d 912, 916 (5th Cir. 2001).
9 Pennhurst State School and Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100 (1984); F.D.I.C. v. Meyer, 510 U.S.
471, 475 (1994).
10 See F ED . R. CIV . P. 12(b)(1).
11 Home Builders Ass’n of Miss., Inc. v. City of Madison, Miss., 143 F.3d 1006, 1010 (5th Cir. 1998) (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted).
12 Ramming v. United States, 281 F.3d 158, 161 (5th Cir. 2001).
13 Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 502 (2006).
Case 2:25-cv-01592-SM-EJD Document 34 Filed 10/30/25 Page 2 of 5

3
consider the Rule 12(b)(1) jurisdictional attack before addressing any attack on the
merits.”14
LAW AND ANALYSIS
Under the Eleventh Amendment, “the judicial power of the United States shall not
be construed to extend to any suit, in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one
of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any foreign
state.” 15 This grant of immunity extends to federal suits against a state brought by citizens
of that state. 16 In fact, “[t]he ‘ultimate guarantee of the Eleventh Amendment’ . . . is that
a non-consenting State may not be sued in federal court by private individuals, including
its own citizens.” 17 Unless sovereign immunity is waived, expressly abrogated by
Congress, or consented to by the State, sovereign immunity bars suits against states by
citizens of that state.
In the present action, Plaintiff sues the State of Louisiana under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to enjoin enforcement of a recently enacted
Louisiana law.18 The State of Louisiana has not waived its sovereign immunity from §
1983 claims, nor has Congress expressly abrogated state sovereign immunity from § 1983
claims.19 Nonetheless, Plaintiff argues that sovereign immunity does not apply because of
the Ex parte Young exception.20 Under Ex parte Young, a plaintiff may sue a state official
in his official capacity if the action seeks prospective relief to redress an ongoing violation
14 Ramming, 281 F.3d at 161.
15 U.S. C ONST. amend. XI.
16 Bowling, et al. v. Pence, 39 F. Supp. 3d 1025, 1029 (S.D. Ind. 2014).
17 Williams v. Louisiana, 2015 WL 5318945, at *6 (M.D. La. Sept. 11, 2015) (quoting Board of Trustees of
the University of Alabama, et al. v. Garrett, et al., 531 U.S. 356, 363 (2001)).
18 R. Doc. 11 at ¶ 23, p. 4.
19 La. R.S. 13:5106(A); Champagne v. Jefferson Par. Sheriff’s Off., 188 F.3d 312, 314 (5th Cir. 1999) (citing
Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 345 (1979)).
20 Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 167-68 (1908).
Case 2:25-cv-01592-SM-EJD Document 34 Filed 10/30/25 Page 3 of 5

4
of federal law.21 This exception is based on the legal fiction that a state official is “not the
state for sovereign-immunity purposes” when a “federal court commands [him or her] to
do nothing more than refrain from violating federal law.” 22
There are three elements that must be met for the action to fall under Ex parte
young: (1) it must be brought against state officers who are acting in their official
capacities; (2) seek prospective relief to redress ongoing conduct; and (3) allege a
violation of federal, not state, law. 23
Plaintiff does not meet the first element required for his action to fall under the Ex
parte Young exception. Plaintiff sued only the State of Louisiana in federal court, alleging
that the State of Louisiana, not a state official acting in an official capacity, is violating his
federal constitutional rights. This is in direct contravention to the fundamental principle
that “it is inherent in the nature of sovereignty not to be amenable to the suit of an
individual without [the sovereign’s] consent.” 24 In our federal system, each State is a
sovereign entity, preventing it from being hailed into federal court absent any exception
or abrogation of its immunity. Therefore, the State of Louisiana is immune from Plaintiff’s
claims, and this action will be dismissed. 25
Accordingly,
21 Id.
22 Virginia Office for Prot. & Advocacy v. Stewart, 563 U.S. 247, 255 (2011).
23 NiGen Biotech, L.L.C. v. Paxton, 804 F.3d 389, 394 (5th Cir. 2015).
24 Fla. Prepaid Postsecondary Educ. Expense Bd. v. Coll. Sav. Bank, 527 U.S. 627, 634 (1999) (quoting
Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44, 54 (1996)).
25 If a 12(b)(1) analysis indicates that a court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, then the case must be
dismissed without prejudice. Mitchell v. Bailey, 982 F.3d 937, 944 (5th Cir. 2020).
Case 2:25-cv-01592-SM-EJD Document 34 Filed 10/30/25 Page 4 of 5

5
IT 	IS 	ORDERED 	that 	Defendant’s 	motion 	to 	dismiss 26 	is 	GRANTED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of subject matter jurisdiction as the State of Louisiana
is entitled to sovereign immunity.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 30th day of October, 2025.
________________________________
SUSIE MORGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
CLERK TO NOTIFY VIA MAIL:
Mr. Clayton Cangelosi
2357 Caddy Drive
Marrero, LA 70072
26 R. Doc. 26.
Case 2:25-cv-01592-SM-EJD Document 34 Filed 10/30/25 Page 5 of 5