LANTERI v. CONNECTICUT (2018)

SUMMARY ORDER

Appellant Michael A. Lanteri, pro se, sued the State of Connecticut under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that a family court judge violated the First Amendment and due process by ordering him to pay alimony and certain assets to his former wife. The district court dismissed Lanteri’s § 1983 claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the ground that the State was immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues presented for review.

Dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is proper “when the district court lacks the statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate.” Makarova v. United States, 201 F.3d 110, 113 (2d Cir. 2000). We review questions of subject matter jurisdiction de novo. See Lefkowitz v. Bank of N.Y., 528 F.3d 102, 107 (2d Cir. 2007).

As the district court determined, the Eleventh Amendment precludes a party from suing a state unless the state expressly waives its immunity or Congress abrogates that immunity. See CSX Transp., Inc. v. N.Y. State Office of Real Prop. Servs., 306 F.3d 87, 94-95 (2d Cir. 2002). Connecticut has not waived its immunity. See Fetterman v. Univ. of Conn., 192 Conn. 539, 550-52, 473 A.2d 1176 (1984), abrogated on other grounds by Piteau v. Bd. of Educ. of the City of Hartford, 300 Conn. 667, 15 A.3d 1067 (2011). Nor has Congress abrogated it. See Dube v. State Univ. of N.Y., 900 F.2d 587, 594 (2d Cir. 1990). Therefore, Lanteri’s § 1983 claims are barred.

Lanteri argues that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction because his complaint raised a federal question and that the court erred by failing to address his claims on the merits. However, a state is immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment even if the suit raises a federal question. See Atl. Healthcare Benefits Tr. v. Googins, 2 F.3d 1, 4 (2d Cir. 1993). And because a district court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate a claim against an immune defendant, the court did not err in declining to resolve Lanteri’s § 1983 claims on the merits. See id.

The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state law claims once it dismissed the § 1983 claims. Because the court dismissed the § 1983 claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, however, it also lacked jurisdiction over any remaining state law claims. See Cohen v. Postal Holdings, LLC, 873 F.3d 394, 399 (2d Cir. 2017) (“When a district court correctly dismisses all federal claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), the district court is thereby precluded from exercising supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims.”).

We have considered Lanteri’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.