3 The same basic rule applies when reviewing a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. “[T]he district court must accept the complaint’s well-pleaded factual allegations as true and draw reasonable inferences from
allegations in the plaintiff’s favor.”
Transit Express, Inc. v. Ettinger
, 246 F.3d 1018, 1023 (7th Cir. 2001). However, the federal courts “are not required to accept legal conclusions that may be alleged in the complaint.”
Vaden v. Village of Maywood, Ill
., 809 F.2d 361, 363 (7th Cir. 1987),
, 482 U.S. 908 (1987) (citing
Reichenberger v. Pritchard,
660 F.2d 280, 282 (7th Cir. 1981)).
Because the Governor Does Not Enforce Indiana Code Section 31-11-1-1, the Case is Not Justiciable Against Him and This Court Lacks Article III Jurisdiction
Plaintiffs have sued to have Indiana’s Defense of Marriage Act, Indiana Code section 31-11-1-1, declared unconstitutional. Complaint at 15-16.
In their Prayer for Relief, they generally demand the following: B.
A preliminary and permanent injunctive order directing the State of Indiana to issue a marriage license to Plaintiffs . . . and prohibiting Defendants
from refusing to issue marriage licenses to other same-sex couples based solely on their sex and/or sexual orientation[;] *** D.
preliminary and permanent injunctions enjoining Defendants from denying the Plaintiff couples and all other same-sex couples the rights, burdens, and benefits associated with lawful marriage; [and] E.
an order directing Defendants to recognize marriages validly entered into by the Plaintiff couples and other same-sex couples outside of the state of Indiana[.] Complaint at 15. They allege that they have sued Governor Pence because he is the “chief executive officer of the State and is responsible for the faithful execution of the laws of the State . . . including the laws that exclude same-sex couples from marrying or having their out-of-state
Plaintiffs’ Complaint repeatedly references “Defendants” despite having named Governor Pence as the sole defendant in this case. Presumably this was a mere typographical error.
Case 4:14-cv-00015-RLY-TAB Document 19 Filed 04/04/14 Page 3 of 11 PageID #: 253