TONINA v. CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE SERVICES (2021)

SUMMARY ORDER

Theresa Tonina, proceeding pro se, appeals from a judgment of the district court dismissing her complaint against the Connecticut Department of Revenue Services (the “Department”). Construing her complaint liberally, we understand Tonina to bring § 1983 claims under various Amendments to the Constitution, as well as state law defamation and harassment claims. She bases her claims for damages on allegations that the Department discriminated against her and refused to provide her with exculpatory information in the course of conducting tax audits concerning car sales purportedly connected to Tonina's business. Tonina further alleges that the Department improperly levied $250,000 in back taxes against her and placed a lien on her property. The district court dismissed Tonina's complaint as barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Tonina now appeals. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history, and arguments on appeal, to which we refer only as necessary to explain our decision to affirm.

When a district court dismisses a complaint based on Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity, we review its legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for clear error. Leitner v. Westchester Cmty. Coll., 779 F.3d 130, 134 (2d Cir. 2015).

Subject to certain exceptions, the Eleventh Amendment generally bars private individuals from suing states in federal court. Id. This broad immunity “encompasses not just actions in which a state is actually named as a defendant, but also certain actions against state agents and instrumentalities.” Id. A “state instrumentality” is immune from suit when “it is an ‘arm of the state.’ ” Id. (quoting Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706, 756, 119 S.Ct. 2240, 144 L.Ed.2d 636 (1999)). The primary exceptions to Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit involve circumstances when the state has consented to suit “in unequivocal terms” or when “Congress, pursuant to a valid exercise of power, unequivocally expresses its intent to abrogate the immunity.” Green v. Mansour, 474 U.S. 64, 68, 106 S.Ct. 423, 88 L.Ed.2d 371 (1985).

The Department is a state agency under the direction of the Commissioner of Revenue Services. The Commissioner is appointed by the Governor of Connecticut. See Conn. Gen. Stat. § 12-1a. As the district court recognized and Tonina does not dispute on appeal, Connecticut has not consented to this suit, and Congress has not abrogated Connecticut's immunity with respect to Tonina's claims. As an arm of the State of Connecticut, the Department is thus immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment, as we have ruled previously. See In re Charter Oak Assocs., 361 F.3d 760, 764 n.1 (2d Cir. 2004) (explaining that the Department is an “agenc[y] of the state of Connecticut and thus immune from suit to the same extent as the state itself”). The district court properly dismissed Tonina's complaint based on the Department's immunity from suit.¹

In her appeal, Tonina does not engage with the district court's reasoning on immunity. Instead, she argues that the district court erred by not considering certain of her claims on the merits. Yet, because the Department is immune from suit, the district court was foreclosed from considering the merits of any of Tonina's claims. See Va. Office for Protection & Advocacy v. Stewart, 563 U.S. 247, 254, 131 S.Ct. 1632, 179 L.Ed.2d 675 (2011) (“[A]bsent waiver or valid abrogation, federal courts may not entertain a private person's suit against a State.”).

We have considered Tonina's remaining arguments and find in them no basis for reversal. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court and DENY her motion as moot.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Dismissal of Tonina's complaint is not avoided by the exception to Eleventh Amendment immunity set forth in Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 28 S.Ct. 441, 52 L.Ed. 714 (1908), because Tonina does not bring this action against a state official acting in his official capacity and because she seeks monetary relief. See State Emps. Bargaining Agent Coal. v. Rowland, 494 F.3d 71, 95 (2d Cir. 2007) (“Under the well-known exception to [Eleventh Amendment immunity] first set forth in Ex parte Young, ․ a plaintiff may sue a state official acting in his official capacity—notwithstanding the Eleventh Amendment—for prospective, injunctive relief from violations of federal law.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).