42 USC § 1983; Claims against a state under the Thirteenth Amendment for a state officer’s sexual assaults; Whether the Thirteenth Amendment provides for a private cause of action; Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity

The court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of plaintiffs’ action for violations of the Thirteenth Amendment arising from their alleged sexual abuse by a state probation officer, holding that the Thirteenth Amendment neither provides a private cause of action for damages nor abrogates state sovereign immunity. A probation officer was charged with several crimes against plaintiffs. They sued under § 1983 and the Thirteenth Amendment. They withdrew the § 1983 claim after it was challenged on statute of limitations grounds. Their Thirteenth Amendment claim alleged that defendants violated their “Thirteenth Amendment rights to be free from ‘unwanted sexual physical contact,’ ‘unwanted intrusion upon Plaintiffs’ person(s) for the sexual gratification of Defendants’ employee,’ ‘sexual physical assault,’ and ‘unwanted sexual contact.’” The court first held that there is no private cause of action under the Thirteenth Amendment, explaining that “‘[t]he Supreme Court has never recognized a cause of action arising directly under the Constitution in a case where § 1983 was available as a remedy,’ and ‘it is unnecessary and needlessly redundant to imply a cause of action arising directly under the Constitution where Congress has already provided a statutory remedy of equal effectiveness through which the plaintiff could have vindicated her constitutional rights.’” The court noted that “‘§ 1983 provides the exclusive remedy for constitutional violations’ for rights protected by the Fourteenth Amendment where Congress has not otherwise provided a cause of action.” It concluded that “the Thirteenth Amendment is more like the Fourteenth Amendment than the Fourth, Fifth, and Eighth Amendments.” It also rejected plaintiffs’ claim that the States abrogated their right to Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity when they ratified the Thirteenth Amendment. The court held that ““[t]he text of the Thirteenth Amendment and relevant authority” showed that the Amendment did not expressly abrogate Kentucky’s sovereign immunity. While the court acknowledged “the severity of Plaintiffs’ allegations, controlling precedent limits its capacity to craft a new path for relief where Plaintiffs simply failed to timely file their complaint under” § 1983.