## Facts

- Marie G. Burnette and Ralph G. Burnette, Jr., owned a home in the Rye Hill section of Somers, Connecticut.
- They alleged that hazardous substances had emanated, and continued to emanate, from the Connecticut Correctional Institution in Somers, a state-run prison located north of Rye Hill.
- They claimed the substances polluted, and continued to pollute, the water in their private wells.
- Proceeding pro se, the Burnettes sued various Connecticut state officers in their official capacities, including Larry F. Carothers and other officials connected to the prison and the Department of Correction.
- They asserted claims under the citizen-suit provisions of the Clean Water Act (CWA), the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), and they sought injunctive relief and reimbursement of response costs.
- The district court dismissed the complaint, holding that the State and its officers (sued in their official capacities) were immune under the Eleventh Amendment.
- The Burnettes appealed to the Second Circuit.

## Issues

1. Whether the Eleventh Amendment bars private citizen suits under the CWA and RCRA against Connecticut state officers sued in their official capacities, absent state consent or valid congressional abrogation.
2. Whether the Eleventh Amendment bars the Burnettes’ CERCLA claims seeking recovery of response costs from Connecticut officers sued in their official capacities.
3. Whether private homeowners who are not potentially responsible parties may seek contribution under CERCLA § 113(f).

## Decision

- The Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of all claims.
- The court held that the Eleventh Amendment barred the Burnettes’ CWA and RCRA citizen-suit claims against the state officers sued in their official capacities.
- The court held that the Eleventh Amendment also barred the Burnettes’ CERCLA claims seeking response-cost recovery from those officials in their official capacities.
- Separately, the court concluded the Burnettes could not proceed under CERCLA § 113(f) because contribution under that provision is limited to parties that are potentially responsible parties (i.e., parties facing CERCLA liability).

## Legal Principles

- The Eleventh Amendment generally prevents federal courts from hearing private suits against an unconsenting State; this protection extends to suits against state officials in their official capacities when the State is the real party in interest.
- A State may be sued in federal court only if it clearly waives immunity or if Congress unmistakably expresses an intent to abrogate immunity and does so pursuant to a constitutional power that permits abrogation.
- After Seminole Tribe, Congress’s Commerce Clause power cannot support abrogation of state sovereign immunity; statutes enacted under the Commerce Clause do not, by themselves, subject unconsenting States to private suits in federal court.
- The citizen-suit provisions of the CWA and RCRA did not provide a valid basis to hale an unconsenting State (or its officers in their official capacities) into federal court for the relief sought here.
- CERCLA likewise did not provide a valid basis to overcome Connecticut’s Eleventh Amendment immunity for private response-cost claims against the State (or officials sued in their official capacities) in federal court.
- CERCLA § 113(f) creates a contribution remedy tied to allocation of response costs among parties who are themselves liable or potentially liable under CERCLA; plaintiffs who are not potentially responsible parties cannot use § 113(f) as a vehicle for contribution.

## Conclusion

Burnette v. Carothers holds that homeowners’ CWA, RCRA, and CERCLA claims against Connecticut officers sued in their official capacities were barred by the Eleventh Amendment because Connecticut did not consent and Congress did not validly abrogate immunity for those claims, and it also holds that CERCLA § 113(f) contribution is unavailable to private homeowners who are not potentially responsible parties.


Burnette v. Carothers, 192 F.3d 52 (1999)