under Alabama law to file lawsuits and intervene in legal actions, and (ii) is the State’s chief executive officer. Neither ground is sufficient to make the Governor a proper defendant. The Governor’s role as chief executive officer was addressed in Defendants’ motion. That status alone does not give the Governor a sufficiently direct role in enforcement of marriage laws to overcome his Eleventh Amendment Immunity.
See Summit Med. Assocs. V. Pryor
, 180 F.3d 1326, 1341 (11
Cir. 1999) (holding that making a state officer a defendant when the officer lacks connection with enforcement of the challenged law is an attempt to make the
Women’s Emergency Network v. Bush
, 323 F.3d 937, 949 (11
Cir. 2003) (a plaintiff may sue state officers “only when those officers are ‘responsible for’ a challenged action and have ‘some connection’ to the unconstitutional act at issue.”). If the Governor’s role as chief executive officer were enough to make him a proper defendant, then he could be sued in any lawsuit challenging any state statute. That plainly is not the law.
See C.M. ex rel. Marshall v. Bentley
, No. 2:13-CV-591-WKW, 2014 WL 1378432 at *13-14 (M.D. Ala. April 8, 2014) (dismissing claims against the Governor on similar arguments). Concerning Plaintiffs’ other argument, it is true that the Governor may appear in cases involving the State. The Legislature has provided that
Case 1:14-cv-00208-CG-N Document 28 Filed 06/27/14 Page 2 of 6