Illinois Central R. Co. v. Fordice

30 F.Supp.2d 945

ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. Kirk FORDICE, Governor of the State of Mississippi in His Official Capacity, et al., Defendants.

No. Civ.A.3:96-CV-486WS.

United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Jackson Division.

September 30, 1997.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Charles T. Ozier, Wise, Carter, Child & Caraway, Jackson, MS, for Illinois Central Railroad Company, plaintiff.

Alan K. Sudduth, Brown & Watt, Pascagoula, MS, for CSX Transportation, Inc., intervenor-plaintiff.

Rickey T. Moore, Office of the Attorney General, Jackson, MS, for Kirk Fordice, Mike Moore, defendants.

Wilburn Hyche, Rainer & Hyche, Brandon, MS, for Rankin County, Mississippi, Ken Dickerson, defendants.

John G. Wheeler, William Collins Spencer, Mitchell, McNutt, Threadgill, Smith & Sams, Tupelo, MS, for Burlington Northern Railroad Company, intervenor-plaintiff.

Stuart G. Kruger, Watkins, Ludlam & Stennis, Jackson, MS, for The Kansas City Southern Railway Company, intervenor-plaintiff.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

WINGATE, District Judge.

Before the court is the motion of plaintiff Illinois Central Railroad Company for summary judgment against defendants filed pursuant to Rule 56(a)¹ of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Burlington Northern Railroad Company, Kansas City Southern Railway Company and CSX Transportation, Inc. have intervened as plaintiffs in this action. Defendants, Kirk Fordice, as Governor of the State of Mississippi; Mike Moore, Attorney General of the State of Mississippi; Rankin County, Mississippi; and Ken Dickerson, Sheriff of Rankin County, Mississippi, have responded and filed their own motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6)² of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or in the alternative for summary judgement pursuant to Rule 56(b)³ of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Plaintiff, the Illinois Central Railroad Company, brings this action for declaratory and injunctive relief seeking a ruling that Mississippi's Implied Consent Law, Miss. Code Ann. § 63-11-1 et seq., does not apply to railroads and their train crews, since by its express language, Mississippi's Implied Consent Law excludes trains and covers only those motor vehicles which drive upon the public highways, public roads and streets of this state. Alternatively, plaintiff contends that even if this law covers trains and railroads, this state law is preempted by the Federal Railroad Safety Act, Title 49 U.S.C. § 20106 et seq. Defendants argue positions contrary to those of plaintiff, questioning in addition whether plaintiff has representative standing to bring this lawsuit and whether the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution⁴ bars this action. This court has jurisdiction over this dispute under Title 28 U.S.C. § 1331⁵, as the necessary interpretation of the preemptive effect of the Federal Railroad Safety Act, Title 49 U.S.C. § 20106, is a federal question. Declaratory relief is authorized under Title 28 U.S.C. § 2201,⁶ 2202⁷.

Persuaded that it has jurisdiction over this law and that the plaintiff has the requisite standing to bring this lawsuit, this court holds that the prescriptions of the Federal Railroad Safety Act do not preempt the thrust of Mississippi's Implied Consent Law, but that Mississippi's Implied Consent Law does not include trains and their crews within its regulatory embrace. Therefore, as explained herein, this court, upon the undisputed material fact and applicable law, grants summary judgment to the plaintiff.

I. Factual Background

Section 63-11-8 of the Mississippi Code Annotated provides that the operator of a motor vehicle who is involved in an accident that results in a death shall be tested for alcohol and drug content. This statute is part of Mississippi's Implied Consent Law which establishes criminal penalties for persons who operate motor vehicles while under the influence of alcohol or drugs. MissCode Ann. § 63-11-30.

On June 4, 1996, an Illinois Central train hit an automobile at a rail/highway grade crossing in Rankin County, Mississippi. The driver of the automobile was killed. The Rankin County Sheriff's Department required the members of the train crew to submit to a drug and alcohol blood test based on their interpretations of § 63-11-8 of the Mississippi Code. The train crew passed the tests so none of these individuals was determined to be in violation of the statute. Therefore, the Rankin County Sheriff's Office did not file any charges against the train crew. Had the tests shown the train crew to be in violation of the statute, the Sheriff could have charged the crew with Driving Under the Influence (DUI) under § 63-11-30 of the Mississippi Code.

On June 28, 1996, plaintiff, the employer of the train crew, filed a complaint seeking declaratory and injunctive relief asking that § 63-11-8 of the Mississippi Code Annotated be declared null and void insofar as it applies to railroads and railroad train crews. Plaintiff alleges that, insofar as § 63-11-8 applies to railroads, it is preempted by the Federal Railroad Safety Act, Title 49 U.S.C. § 20106 and the regulations promulgated pursuant thereto. Plaintiff further argues preemption under Title 29 C.F.R. § 219, pursuant to the Supremacy Clause, Article VI, clause 2 of the United States Constitution, and as secured by Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants, on the other hand, contend that this action is barred by the Eleventh Amendment; that the plaintiff has no standing; and that there is no justiciable controversy. The court will examine each of the defendants' contentions before addressing the plaintiff's preemption argument.

II. Eleventh Amendment

Defendants argue that this lawsuit is barred by the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution.⁸ According to defendants, because this action is based upon the Federal Railroad Safety Act of 1970, which is founded on the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, this cause of action is barred by the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution pursuant to United States Supreme Court opinion in Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44, 116 S.Ct. 1114, 1123-32, 134 L.Ed.2d 252 (1996).

In Seminole, the United States Supreme Court held that the Eleventh Amendment prevents Congress from authorizing lawsuits by Indian tribes against States to enforce legislation enacted pursuant to the Indian Commerce Clause. In Seminole, the Seminole Tribe sued Florida and its Governor in federal court under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, passed by Congress under the auspices of the Indian Commerce Clause, allowing an Indian tribe to conduct certain gaming activities only in conformance with a valid compact between the tribe and the State in which the gaming activities are located. The defendants therein moved for dismissal of the plaintiff's complaint on the ground that the suit violated Florida's sovereign immunity from suit in federal court. In addition to holding that the Eleventh Amendment barred the suit, the United States Supreme Court additionally held that the factual circumstance here did not warrant application of the doctrine found in Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 28 S.Ct. 441, 52 L.Ed. 714 (1908), which would allow a suit against a state official to go forward, notwithstanding the Eleventh Amendment's jurisdictional bar, where the suit seeks prospective injunctive relief in order to end a continuing feudal-law violation. The Court found that since Congress had prescribed a detailed remedial scheme which could address plaintiff's concerns, the precepts of Ex Parte Young were not available.

Seminole is not applicable to the lawsuit sub judice. Defendants have made no showing that plaintiff has available to it some alternative, detailed statutory remedial scheme created by Congress. Instead, the controversy here falls squarely within the exception to the precepts of Eleventh Amendment immunity as carved out by Ex Parte Young. The Fifth Circuit's opinion in CIGNA Healthplan of Louisiana, Inc. v. State of Louisiana ex rel. Ieyoub, 82 F.3d 642 (5th Cir.1996) appears to agree with this court's observation, where the Fifth Circuit summarily rejected an argument strikingly similar to that offered by defendants here.

In CIGNA, two health maintenance organizations brought suit against the Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, in his official capacity, seeking declaratory judgment that the State's "Any Willing Provider" statute was preempted by the Employee Retirement and Income Security Act ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. The Attorney General argued that the Eleventh Amendment barred the lawsuit. The district court held that the argument was "patently without merit" and the Fifth Circuit agreed. CIGNA, 82 F.3d at 644 n. 1. The Fifth Circuit explained, stating that "it is well established that the federal courts have jurisdiction to hear suits against state officials where, as here, the plaintiffs seek only prospective declaratory or injunctive relief to prevent the continuing violation of federal law." Id. As for the Supreme Court's decision in Seminole, the Fifth Circuit went on to state:

Our conclusion is unaffected by the Supreme Court's recent decision in Seminole .... There, a sharply divided court held that suits against state officials for prospective injunctive relief are barred `where Congress has prescribed the detailed remedial scheme for the enforcement against the state of the statutorily created right.' Here, [the health maintenance organizations] do not seek to enforce against Louisiana any cause of action created by Congress; and no Congressionally mandated remedial scheme is implicated. Instead, [they] seek only to prevent a Louisiana official from violating the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution by encroaching on legal terrains that Congress has properly deemed preempted. Accordingly, the Court's holding in Seminole does not apply to the circumstances of ...