{"id":341,"date":"2026-01-05T12:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-01-05T12:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=341"},"modified":"2026-01-05T12:00:00","modified_gmt":"2026-01-05T12:00:00","slug":"eccarius-united-states-nlrb-tenth-amendment-sovereign-immunity-dismissed","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=341","title":{"rendered":"Eccarius v. United States \u2014 N.D. Cal. dismisses NLRB grievance constitutional suit with prejudice"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
Case<\/dt>\n
Anthony Carl Eccarius v. United States of America, et al.<\/dd>\n
Court<\/dt>\n
U.S. District Court \u2014 Northern District of California<\/dd>\n
Date Decided<\/dt>\n
2026-01-05<\/dd>\n
Docket No.<\/dt>\n
3:25-cv-04668<\/dd>\n
Status<\/dt>\n
Unreported \/ Non-Citable<\/dd>\n
Topics<\/dt>\n
Sovereign immunity; Administrative Procedure Act \u00a7 702; Tenth Amendment private right of action; Bivens; Egbert v. Boule; service of process; Mendocino County<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/div>\n

Background<\/h2>\n

Anthony Carl Eccarius filed a labor grievance with the National Labor Relations Board in May 2021, framing it around the Tenth Amendment and asserting that sovereignty belongs \u201cto the People.\u201d The NLRB denied the grievance promptly. Eccarius then took the same grievance to the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing, the state Medical Board, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and from there to a habeas petition in the Northern District, the Ninth Circuit, and the U.S. Supreme Court \u2014 all unsuccessful.<\/p>\n

In June 2025, Eccarius filed this action against the United States in the Northern District, alleging due process, Tenth Amendment, and equal protection violations. Judge Charles Breyer dismissed that complaint for lack of jurisdiction (no waiver of sovereign immunity) and failure to state a claim (no private right of action under the Tenth Amendment, and Fourteenth Amendment does not apply to the federal government), with leave to amend.<\/p>\n

Eccarius then filed an amended complaint that dropped the United States as a defendant, added unnamed NLRB officers and Mendocino County officials, added a Fifth Amendment due process claim grounded in the federal defendants\u2019 alleged refusal to address his Tenth Amendment claims, and asserted both official-capacity claims under the Administrative Procedure Act and individual-capacity claims under Bivens<\/em>. The federal defendants moved to dismiss; Mendocino County moved to quash service or dismiss. Eccarius did not respond to either motion in any substantive way.<\/p>\n

The Court’s Holding<\/h2>\n

Judge Breyer granted both motions and dismissed the case with prejudice on every theory.<\/p>\n

On official-capacity claims against the federal defendants, the court reaffirmed that sovereign immunity bars suits against the United States and its officers in their official capacity unless an unequivocal waiver applies. APA \u00a7 702 only waives immunity for non-monetary relief tied to judicial review of a final agency action, and even then a final agency action must be plausibly alleged. Eccarius\u2019s amended complaint identified only the NLRB\u2019s 2021 grievance denial without describing the grievance, the NLRB\u2019s reasoning, or whether the denial was a reviewable final action. That gap deprived the court of jurisdiction over the official-capacity due process and equal protection claims.<\/p>\n

On the Tenth Amendment claims, the court reaffirmed its earlier ruling that there is no general private right of action under the Tenth Amendment. Eccarius\u2019s contrary insistence in his statement of non-opposition did not change the controlling authority.<\/p>\n

On the individual-capacity Bivens<\/em> claims against unnamed NLRB officers, the court applied Egbert v. Boule<\/em> and the Supreme Court\u2019s contemporary, almost-categorical reluctance to extend Bivens<\/em> to new contexts. Federal employee labor-management oversight by the NLRB is a \u201cnew context\u201d for Bivens<\/em> purposes, and Congress has provided alternative remedial structures. The court declined to imply a damages action.<\/p>\n

On Mendocino County and its officers, the court found service of process defective and the complaint void of facts that would tie any county actor to a constitutional violation. The complaint did not plausibly allege any policy, practice, or specific conduct of the county defendants tied to a federally protected right.<\/p>\n

The court dismissed all claims with prejudice, citing Eccarius\u2019s failure to cure deficiencies after a first round of leave to amend and his prior unsuccessful attempts to litigate the same NLRB grievance through multiple federal and state forums.<\/p>\n

Key Takeaways<\/h2>\n