SOILEAU v. BOARD OF PILOT COMMISSIONERS

Page 1 of 4
Case No. 4:25cv217-RH-MAF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TALLAHASSEE DIVISION
JOEL SOILEAU,
Plaintiff,
v. 	CASE NO. 4:25cv217-RH-MAF
BOARD OF PILOT
COMMISSIONERS,
Defendant.
___________________________/
ORDER DISMISSING THE AMENDED COMPLAINT
AND SETTING A DEADLINE FOR ANY
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND FURTHER
The plaintiff seeks an award of damages, not prospective relief of any kind,
against a single defendant, the Florida “Board of Pilot Commissioners.” The Board
has moved to dismiss the amended complaint based on Eleventh Amendment
immunity and on other grounds. The motion is before the court on the magistrate
judge’s report and recommendation, ECF No. 45, and the objections, ECF No. 46.
I have reviewed de novo the issues raised by the objections.
The Board of Pilot Commissioners is a “board . . . within the Division of
Professions of the Department of Business and Professional Regulation.” Fla. Stat.
Case 4:25-cv-00217-RH-MAF Document 48 Filed 07/27/26 Page 1 of 4

Page 2 of 4
Case No. 4:25cv217-RH-MAF
§ 310.011(1); see also In re Hercules Carriers, Inc., 768 F.2d 1558, 1578 (11th
Cir. 1985) (describing the Board of Pilot Commissioners as “a division of the
DPR”—the predecessor of DBPR).
A state sued in its own name has Eleventh Amendment immunity, regardless
of the relief sought, unless the immunity has been waived or validly abrogated by
Congress. See Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 (1996). For this
purpose, the Board of Pilot Commissioners is equivalent to the state itself. This
standing alone requires dismissal of the amended complaint. And even if the Board
was somehow deemed not the equivalent of the state for this purpose, the damages
claim still could not go forward. The Eleventh Amendment applies to a claim for
damages that would be payable from the state treasury, even if nominally against
someone else. See Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651 (1974).
This action thus would properly be dismissed based on the Eleventh
Amendment even if, as seems unlikely, the proper defendant in a permissible
action based on Board of Pilot Commissioners activity was the Board rather than
the Department of Business and Professional Regulation.
The plaintiff’s objections fail to come to grips with any of this. The plaintiff
says the court must take as true the amended complaint’s assertion that the Board
is not a state agency, but that is not so; Florida Statutes § 310.011 says what it
says. The plaintiff says he has been denied an opportunity to address the Board’s
Case 4:25-cv-00217-RH-MAF Document 48 Filed 07/27/26 Page 2 of 4

Page 3 of 4
Case No. 4:25cv217-RH-MAF
status or the Eleventh Amendment, but that is not so. The plaintiff had an
opportunity to address these subjects in response to the motion to dismiss and
again in his objections to the report and recommendation.
The plaintiff says he should be given leave to amend further to seek an
injunction. Under Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908), a party whose federal
rights have been violated may seek prospective relief against an appropriate state
official. But the first amended complaint asserts only violations of state law, not
federal law, and when asking for leave to amend, the plaintiff has not identified
any federal right the Board or its members have allegedly violated. This order does
not grant leave to amend but gives the plaintiff 21 days to file a motion for leave to
amend accompanied by a proposed second amended complaint.
IT IS ORDERED:
1. The report and recommendation is accepted in part.
2. The motion to dismiss, ECF No. 43, is granted in part. The first amended
complaint is dismissed based on Eleventh Amendment immunity.
3. The plaintiff may file a motion for leave to file a second amended
complaint, together with a proposed second amended complaint, by August 17,
Case 4:25-cv-00217-RH-MAF Document 48 Filed 07/27/26 Page 3 of 4

Page 4 of 4
Case No. 4:25cv217-RH-MAF
2026. The clerk must refer any such motion directly to me, not to the magistrate
judge.
SO ORDERED on July 27, 2026.
s/Robert L. Hinkle
United States District Judge
Case 4:25-cv-00217-RH-MAF Document 48 Filed 07/27/26 Page 4 of 4