court, consistent with the Eleventh Amendment, may enjoin state officials to conform their future conduct to the requirements of federal law.”
, 465 U.S. at 102-103.
6. In order to overcome the Eleventh Amendment bar through this
Ex parte Young
fiction, however, the defendant state official that is sued must have “‘some connection with the enforcement of the act’ in question or be ‘specially charged with the duty to enforce the statute.’”
Okpalobi v. Foster
, 244 F.3d 405, 414-15 (5
cir. 20021) (en banc). Otherwise, just because he is the Governor of Texas, Plaintiffs here could test “...then the constitutionality of every act passed by the legislature …by a suit against the governor and the attorney general.... (quoting
Ex parte Young,
at pp.411-412.). 7. In order to establish the connection required under
Ex parte Young
, the state officer that is sued must have more than some generalized duty to enforce or defend the laws of the state. Eleventh Amendment immunity obtains unless “They were not expressly directed to see to its enforcement.”
at 413. 8. For the foregoing reasons, the Plaintiffs cannot demonstrate that the Governor’s immunity from suit can be overcome under
Ex Parte Young
; as such, their claims are jurisdictional barred and must be dismissed.
, 244 F.3d at 416-21.
A. Plaintiffs Cannot Establish Standing or Ripeness
9. To obtain Art. III jurisdiction under the Constitution plaintiffs must meet the standards set forth in
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife
, 504 U.S. 555, 560, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992). ”First, they must show that they have suffered, or are about to suffer, an “injury in fact.” Second, “there must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of.” Third, “it must be likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.”
Case 1:13-cv-00631-SS Document 6 Filed 09/16/13 Page 3 of 5