Full opinion text
MEMORANDUM OPINION NORA BARRY FISCHER, District Judge. I. Introduction The Defendants in this action have filed motions to dismiss the Plaintiffs amended complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Docket Nos. 30 & 32. The Plaintiff has moved to strike portions of a brief filed in support of one of the pending motions to dismiss. Docket No. 42. The Plaintiff also asks the Court to take judicial notice of comments reportedly made by Allegheny County Executive Richard Fitzgerald (“County Executive”) during a recent press conference. Docket No. 43. In the event that such judicial notice is taken, the Plaintiff seeks leave to file a supplemental brief discussing the relevance of the County Executive’s comments to this case. Docket No. 44. In addition, the Plaintiff and the county defendants have filed motions requesting the entry of a consent order that would terminate this action. Docket Nos. 52 & 58. Because the amended complaint “fail[s] to state a claim upon which relief can be granted,” the motions to dismiss will be granted pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); Docket Nos. 30 & 32. The remaining five motions will be denied. Docket Nos. 42, 43, 44, 52 & 58. II. Background Plaintiff PG Publishing Co. (“PG”) is the publisher of the Pittsburgh Posh-Gazette, which is a daily newspaper circulated throughout western Pennsylvania. Docket No. 28 at ¶ 4. Defendant Carol Aichele presently serves as the Secretary of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (“Secretary”). Id. at ¶ 5. The Allegheny County Elections Division (“Elections Division”) is charged with the duty of administering the Commonwealth’s election laws and regulations throughout Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. Id. at ¶ 6. Defendant Mark Wolosik currently serves as the Division Manager of the Elections Division (“Division Manager”). Id. at ¶ 7. The Pennsylvania Constitution gives the Commonwealth’s General Assembly the authority to enact legislation governing the conduct of elections. Pa. Const., Art. VII, § 6; Mixon v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 759 A.2d 442, 450 (Pa. Commw.Ct.2000). Article VII, § 4, of the Pennsylvania Constitution mandates that “secrecy in voting be preserved.” Pa. Const., Art. VII, § 4. Pursuant to its regulatory authority, the General Assembly has enacted 25 Pa. Stat. § 3060, which provides: § 3060. Regulations in force at polling places (a) Until the polls are closed, no person shall be allowed in the polling place outside of the enclosed space at any primary or election, except the watchers, voters not exceeding ten at any one time who are awaiting their turn to vote, and peace officers, when necessary for the preservation of the peace. No elector shall be allowed to occupy a voting compartment or voting machine booth already occupied by another, except when giving assistance as permitted by this act. (b) No elector, except an election officer, clerk, machine operator or overseer, shall be allowed to re-enter the enclosed space after he has once left it, except to give assistance as provided by this act. (c) No person, when within the polling place, shall electioneer or solicit votes for any political party, political body or candidate, nor shall any written or printed matter be posted up within the said room, except as required by this act. (d) All persons, except election officers, clerks, machine inspectors, overseers, watchers, persons in the course of voting, persons lawfully giving assistance to voters, and peace and police officers, when permitted by the provisions of this act, must remain at least ten (10) feet distant from the polling place during the progress of the voting. (e) When the hour for closing the polls shall arrive, all qualified electors who have already qualified, and are inside the enclosed space, shall be permitted to vote; and, in addition thereto, all those qualified electors who are in the polling place outside the enclosed space waiting to vote and all those voters who are in line either inside or outside of the polling place waiting to vote, shall be permitted to do so, if found qualified. (f) It shall be the duty of the judge of election to secure the observance of the provision of this section, to keep order in the voting room, and to see that no more persons are admitted within the enclosed space than are permitted by this act. The judge of election may call upon any constable, deputy constable, police officer or other peace officer to aid him in the performance of his duties under this section. 25 Pa. Stat. § 3060. These statutory provisions are designed to promote “the free exercise of the right of suffrage” enjoyed by qualified voters throughout Pennsylvania. Pa. Const., Art. I, § 5. General elections to fill federal, state and local offices are held on the Tuesday following the first Monday in November. 2 U.S.C. §§ 1, 7; 3 U.S.C. § 1; 25 Pa. Stat. §§ 2751-2752. Four years ago, the general election was conducted on November 4, 2008. An attorney for PG contacted the Division Manager in October 2008 and inquired about the restrictions that the Elections Division would impose on Post-Gazette reporters covering the election at polling places throughout Allegheny County. Docket No. 31-1 at 11. In a letter to PG’s counsel dated October 28, 2008, an attorney employed by Allegheny County’s Department of Law stated as follows: This letter is to confirm our telephone conversation of last week where I indicated that Allegheny County’s policy is to prohibit photographs, video taping and any other type of recording inside the polling place. That prohibition extends to attempts to record activity in the polling place from outside of the polling place, for example, through an open door or window. The Pennsylvania Constitution at Article VII, Section 4 mandates secrecy in voting. That provision, combined with the applicable provisions of the Pennsylvania Election Code limiting persons properly inside the polling place, prohibits any recording or attempt to record activity inside the polling place. That prohibition does not, though, extend to outside the polling place. There seems to be no restriction on recording outside the polling place. Id. at 12. By prohibiting attempts to photograph or record activities within polling places through open doors and windows, the Elections Division’s policy was more restrictive than § 3060(d). 25 Pa. Stat. § 3060(d). PG commenced an action against Allegheny County and the Allegheny County Board of Elections (“Board”) in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County on October 31, 2008, alleging that the policy promulgated by the Elections Division was violative of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article I, § 7, of the Pennsylvania Constitution. Docket No. 31-1 at 2-10. The complaint filed by PG alleged that, during previous elections, Allegheny County officials had “attempted to prevent news photographers who were located in places lawfully accessible to them from photographing in the direction of voting machines.” Id. at 5, ¶ 7. It was further alleged that counties surrounding Allegheny County had not imposed similar restrictions on members of the media. Id. PG sought a preliminary injunction prohibiting Allegheny County officials from enforcing the policy. Docket No. 31-2 at 4. Attached to its motion was a proposed order reading as follows: AND NOW, to wit, this ___ day of November, 2008, upon consideration of Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Complaint; AND upon having determined that Plaintiff will suffer immediate and irreparable injury as a result of Defendants’ conduct, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that Plaintiffs Motion be and hereby is GRANTED. Defendants and their agents are hereby prohibited from restricting or interfering with attempts of Plaintiffs agents and employees to photograph activities in and around polling places so long as Plaintiffs agents and employees are located in areas accessible to the public or into which they have otherwise been lawfully admitted. Id. at 5. Judge Joseph James signed and dated the proposed order on November 3, 2008. Docket No. 31-4 at 2-3. At the end of the order, however, Judge James added the following sentence: No photography shall be taken from inside the polling place or within ten (10) feet of the entrance of the polling place. Id. at 2. This sentence was apparently added to clarify that Allegheny County officials were not prohibited from enforcing § 3060(d). 25 Pa. Stat. § 3060(d). Elections for federal offices are governed by the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (“HAVA”) [42 U.S.C. § 15301 et seq.'l Under § 302(a) of the HAVA, an individual who declares himself or herself to be an eligible voter in a given jurisdiction is entitled to “east a provisional ballot” in the event that his or her name “does not appear on the official list of eligible voters for the [relevant] polling place,” or if “an election official asserts that [he or she] is not eligible to vote.” Pub.L. No. 107-252, § 302(a); 116 Stat. 1666, 1706-1707 (2002); 42 U.S.C. § 15482(a). A vote appearing on a provisional ballot is counted only if an election official later verifies the individual’s eligibility to vote under state law. 42 U.S.C. § 15482(a)(4). Pennsylvania’s General Assembly recently enacted “Act 18,” which revised the statutory provisions governing the conduct of elections. 2012 Pa. Laws 18. The revisions became effective on March 14, 2012, when Act 18 was signed into law by Governor Tom Corbett. Id., § 12. Section 3 of Act 18 requires an individual to provide a “proof of identification” before voting. Id., § 3; 25 Pa. Stat. § 3050(a). An individual who is unable to satisfy this requirement may cast only a provisional ballot. 25 Pa. Stat. § 3050(a.2), (a.4). On June 19, 2012, PG filed a motion to amend with the Court of Common Pleas, seeking changes to Judge James’ order of November 3, 2008. Docket No. 31-5 at 2-9. PG requested that the following language be added to the order: Starting with the November 6, 2012, Pennsylvania general election and continuing with all primary and general elections thereafter, The Post-Gazette’s agents and employees are permitted to photograph and film (collectively “record”) members of the electorate in the polling place as they register with the election officials, but are not permitted to record the electorate in the voting booths while they vote. Further, upon objection by any member of the electorate, The Post-Gazette’s agent or employee shall cease recording the objector immediately. Id. at 29. In support of its position, PG argued that reporters working for the Post-Gazette were constitutionally entitled to observe and cover the implementation and enforcement of Act 18. Id. at 6-8, ¶¶ 9-16. PG also maintained that newspaper reporters working in other Pennsylvania counties had been permitted to take photographs of voters inside of polling places. Id. at 5-6, ¶¶ 4-8. A hearing before Judge James was scheduled for July 17, 2012. Id. at 30. PG commenced this action against the Secretary, the Division Manager and the Board on July 11, 2012, alleging that § 3060(d) could not be constitutionally applied to members of the media. Docket No. 1 at ¶¶ 1, 18, 22-29. The complaint filed by PG contained claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Id. at ¶¶ 21-35. The First Amendment claims were based on a contention that the continued enforcement of § 3060(d) in Allegheny County would interfere with the ability of Post-Gazette reporters to observe and cover the interactions between voters and election officials on Election Day. Id. at ¶¶ 17-29. PG also averred that the Defendants had violated its rights under the Equal Protection Clause by denying Post-Gazette reporters access to polling places while permitting reporters from other newspapers to photograph individuals in the act of voting. Id. at ¶¶ 14-15, 31-32, 34. Immediately after commencing this action, PG filed a praecipe to discontinue the proceedings in the Court of Common Pleas. Docket No. 31-6 at 2-4. On July 31, 2012, the Secretary moved for the dismissal of PG’s complaint. Docket No. 21. The Board and the Division Manager filed a separate motion to dismiss later that day. Docket No. 23. Efforts to resolve the case through the Court’s alternative dispute resolution (“ADR”) program were unsuccessful. Docket No. 29. PG filed an amended complaint on August 13, 2012, adding new factual allegations to support its claims under the Equal Protection Clause. Docket No. 28 at ¶¶ 14-18, 34-36, 38-39. The filing of the amended complaint effectively mooted the Defendants’ earlier motions to dismiss. Brickell v. Clinton County Prison Board, 658 F.Supp.2d 621, 623 (M.D.Pa.2009). The Defendants filed new motions to dismiss on August 21, 2012. Docket Nos. 30 & 32. The parties advanced their respective positions during an oral argument session conducted on September 7, 2012. Docket No. 41. The County Executive, who serves as the Chairman of the Board, conducted a news conference on September 11, 2012. Docket No. 43 at ¶ 1. The next morning, the website of the Postr-Gazette posted an article about the news conference authored by Timothy McNulty (“McNulty”). Docket No. 43-1. The pertinent part of the article stated as follows: Allegheny County Executive Rich Fitzgerald said he wants the news media allowed into polling places on Election Day and was “totally blindsided” by a lawsuit the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette filed in federal court on the matter. Mr. Fitzgerald opposes the state’s new voter identification requirements and said he reached an agreement with the newspaper to not oppose its legal efforts to open up polling places to cameras on Nov. 6. So he was shocked when the Post-Gazette sought that access by suing the state and county in federal court July 11. “If there is any type of voter ID challenge on election day — and we anticipate there will be many throughout our county and probably throughout the country — we think the disinfection of sunlight being there is going to be healthy for democracy,” he said at a Tuesday news conference on the suit. “So we agree with the Post-Gazette and have agreed with them all along. So it was very surprising to us, when we were telling them that we support their position, and we’re going to go to court to support their position, that their lawyer — who should have known better— decided to file suit against a position that we don’t hold.” Id. at 1. A later part of the article attributed comments to PG’s counsel suggesting that Allegheny County had refused to agree to a consent order permitting media access to polling places on Election Day, leaving open the possibility that the Court of Common Pleas would deny relief on the basis of an “unconstitutional statute.” Id. The article was published on Page B2 of the September 12, 2012, edition of the Posl^Gazette. Timothy McNulty, Fitzgerald criticizes PosNGazette over lawsuit on polling place access, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, September 12, 2012, at B2. On September 20, 2012, PG moved to strike portions of the brief filed by the Secretary in support of her motion to dismiss. Docket No. 42. PG also asked the Court to take judicial notice of the statements attributed to the County Executive in McNulty’s article. Docket No. 43. In addition, PG sought leave to file a supplemental brief discussing the importance of the County Executive’s comments. Docket No. 44. The Secretary filed responses to those motions on September 26, 2012. Docket Nos. 48, 50 & 51. PG, the Division Manager and the Board jointly moved for the entry of a consent order on September 27, 2012. Docket No. 52. The terms of the proposed order purported to enjoin the Board from denying “representatives of the media” access to polling places in Allegheny County for the purpose of taking “photographs and moving pictures” of voters during the “sign-in process.” Docket No. 52-1 at 1-2. The term “sign-in process” was used to describe the implementation and enforcement of Act 18’s “identification” requirement. Id. The proposed agreement also included a term requiring the Board to “notify and advise” the judges of election serving throughout Allegheny County of the right of media representatives to enter polling places on Election Day. Id. at 2. In exchange for those concessions, PG offered to withdraw its claims for money damages, its claims arising under the Equal Protection Clause, and its request for declaratory relief concerning the constitutionality of § 3060(d). Id. Although the Secretary declined to consent to the proposed agreement, its execution was conditioned on the discontinuance of PG’s claims against her. Docket No. 52 at 2, ¶ 3. An expedited judicial conference was held on the morning of September 28, 2012, to address this motion and the proposed order. Docket No. 54. Counsel for PG provided the Court with the background and basis of the motion and order to which counsel for the Board and Division Manager agreed. The Secretary, however, objected. Given same, the Court ordered oral argument on October 1, 2012. During the course of same, PG, the Division Manager and the Board revised their proposed order and submitted it for consideration. The revised proposal included a term requiring media representatives to stop recording a voter upon hearing his or her objection. Docket No. 56 at 2. The Secretary continued to object to the entry of a consent decree in this case. Docket No. 57. The Court granted an oral motion made by PG to delay a ruling in this matter until October 5, 2012. Id. No further filings were made as of the close of business on the fifth. The Court will now proceed to address all seven motions presently before the Court. Docket Nos. 30, 32, 42, 43, 44, 52 & 58. III. The Nondispositive Motions Filed byPG PG asks the Court to strike portions of the brief filed by the Secretary in support of her motion to dismiss. Docket No. 42. The motion to strike has been filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), which permits a federal court to “strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f) (emphasis added). A brief filed by a party does not constitute a “pleading” within the meaning of Rule 12(f). Fed. R. Civ. P. (7)(a)(l)-(7). PG’s motion to strike will be denied on that basis. Hrubec v. National Railroad Passenger Corp., 829 F.Supp. 1502, 1506 (N.D.Ill.1993). The arguments advanced in support of PG’s motion to strike are more properly regarded as advocacy in opposition to the Secretary’s motion to dismiss. Essex Insurance Co. v. Foley, 827 F.Supp.2d 1326, 1327, n. 1 (S.D.Ala.2011). Federal Rule of Evidence 201 permits a federal court to “judicially notice” an “adjudicative fact” that “is not subject to reasonable dispute” because it “is generally known within the trial court’s territorial jurisdiction,” or because it “can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” Fed.R.Evid. 201(a), (b)(1)-(2). A federal court may take judicial notice of a newspaper article’s existence. Selkridge v. United of Omaha Life Insurance Co., 360 F.3d 155, 162, n. 5 (3d Cir. 2004). PG asks the Court to take judicial notice of the statements reportedly made by the County Executive during his news conference. Docket No. 43 at 1-2, ¶¶ 1-6. There is an obvious difference between accepting the fact of an article’s existence and accepting the truth of the statements contained therein. Reports made by members of the press are frequently disputed. Montgomery County v. Microvote Corp., 320 F.3d 440, 444, n. 2 (3d Cir.2003). The Court has no reason to question the accuracy of McNulty’s reporting. Nevertheless, a decision to take judicial notice of the comments allegedly made by the County Executive would entail the acceptance not only of the article’s contents, but also of its truth. Under these circumstances, there is no need for the Court to consider whether the existence of the article provides an adequate basis for taking judicial notice of what the County Executive actually said during the news conference. The statements attributed to the County Executive are irrelevant to the issues in this case. Cavert Acquisition Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 83 F.3d 598, 609-610 (3d Cir.1996) (declining to take judicial notice of facts deemed to be irrelevant). In certain instances, statements made by public officials may have some bearing on how a legal dispute should be resolved. Arizona v. United States, — U.S.-,-, 132 S.Ct. 2492, 2520-2521, 183 L.Ed.2d 351 (2012) (Scalia, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). This is not one of those instances. PG contends that the application of § 3060(d) to members of the press is forbidden by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Docket No. 28 at ¶¶ 24-40. The applicable provisions of the Constitution are self-executing. City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507, 524, 117 S.Ct. 2157, 138 L.Ed.2d 624 (1997). The Constitution can be changed only in accordance with Article V. U.S. Const., Art. V; Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417, 449, 118 S.Ct. 2091, 141 L.Ed.2d 393 (1998). “The power to interpret the Constitution in a case or controversy remains in the Judiciary.” Flores, 521 U.S. at 524, 117 S.Ct. 2157 (emphasis added). Nothing said by the County Executive about the desirability of providing newspaper reporters with access to polling places can affect the constitutionality of § 3060(d)’s enforcement. Hence, there is no need for the Court to take judicial notice of his statements. Cavert Acquisition Co., 83 F.3d at 609-610. PG’s motion for the taking of judicial notice will be denied. Docket No. 43. The parties have submitted several briefs in support of their respective positions. They have also been afforded opportunities to advance their positions during oral argument sessions relating to the motions to dismiss and the proposed consent decree. Due to the time-sensitive nature of the present controversy, the Court has gone to great lengths to resolve this matter on an expedited basis. Election Day is only four weeks away. Further delays could seriously compromise the ability of the parties to seek appellate review of today’s decision before the election. Therefore, PG’s request for leave to file a supplemental brief will also be denied. Docket No. 44. IV. Standards of Review A motion to dismiss filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) challenges a court’s subject-matter jurisdiction over the plaintiffs claims. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). “At issue in a Rule 12(b)(1) motion is the court’s ‘very power to hear the case.’ ” Judkins v. HT Window Fashions Corp., 514 F.Supp.2d 753, 759 (W.D.Pa.2007), quoting Mortensen v. First Federal Savings & Loan Association, 549 F.2d 884, 891 (3d Cir.1977). As the party asserting that jurisdiction exists, the plaintiff bears the burden of showing that his or her claims are properly before the court. Development Finance Corp. v. Alpha Housing & Health Care, 54 F.3d 156, 158 (3d Cir.1995). In reviewing a Rule 12(b)(1) motion, a court must determine whether the attack on its jurisdiction is a facial attack or a factual attack. A facial attack challenges the sufficiency of the plaintiffs pleadings on jurisdictional grounds. Petruska v. Gannon University, 462 F.3d 294, 302, n. 3 (3d Cir.2006). When considering a facial attack, a court must accept the allegations contained in the plaintiffs complaint as true. Id. A factual attack on the court’s jurisdiction must be treated differently. Id. When considering a factual attack, the court does not attach a presumption of truthfulness to the plaintiffs allegations, and the existence of disputed material facts does not preclude the court from deciding for itself whether jurisdiction over the plaintiffs claims can be properly exercised. Mortensen, 549 F.2d at 891. In light of the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007), a complaint may be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) if it does not allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 234 (3d Cir.2008), quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). This standard requires more than “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955. The complaint must allege a sufficient number of facts “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Id. This requirement is designed to facilitate the notice-pleading standard of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), which requires “a short and plain statement of [a] claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (emphasis added). In considering a motion to dismiss filed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), a court accepts all of the plaintiffs allegations as true and views all reasonable inferences drawn from those allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Buck v. Hampton Township School District, 452 F.3d 256, 260 (3d Cir.2006). Nonetheless, a court need not credit bald assertions, unwarranted inferences, or legal conclusions cast in the form of factual averments. Morse v. Lower Merion School District, 132 F.3d 902, 906, n. 8 (3d Cir.1997). The primary question in deciding a motion to dismiss is not whether the plaintiff will ultimately prevail, but rather whether he or she is entitled to offer evidence to establish the facts alleged in the complaint. Maio v. Aetna, 221 F.3d 472, 482 (3d Cir.2000). The purpose of a motion to dismiss is to “streamline[ ] litigation by dispensing with needless discovery and factfinding.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 326-327, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989). In addition to the allegations contained in the complaint, a court may consider matters of public record, exhibits attached to the complaint, and other items appearing in the record of the case. Oshiver v. Levin, Fishbein, Sedran & Berman, 38 F.3d 1380, 1384, n. 2 (3d Cir.1994). V. The Motions to Dismiss The Defendants challenge the Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction to entertain this action. Docket No. 30 at ¶ 2; Docket No. 32 at ¶¶ 1-7. They alternatively contend that the claims asserted in the amended complaint are precluded by the earlier decision rendered by the Court of Common Pleas. Docket No. 31 at 9, n. 8; Docket No. 40 at 1-7. The Secretary argues that the Eleventh Amendment immunizes her from any claims for money damages brought by PG. Docket No. 31 at 10-11. The Defendants also maintain that PG fails to allege actionable violations of the Constitution. Docket No. 30 at ¶ 3; Docket No. 32 at ¶¶ 8-15. These issues will be addressed in sequential order. A. The Rooker-Feldman Doctrine Congress has provided United States “district courts” with “original jurisdiction” over “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Since this jurisdiction is “original” in nature, federal district courts are “precluded from exercising appellate jurisdiction over final state-court judgments.” Lance v. Dennis, 546 U.S. 459, 463, 126 S.Ct. 1198, 163 L.Ed.2d 1059 (2006) (per curiam). The Supreme Court’s jurisdiction to review decisions rendered by state tribunals is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1257, which provides: § 1257. State courts; certiorari (a) Final judgments or decrees rendered by the highest court of a State in which a decision could be had, may be reviewed by the Supreme Court by writ of certiorari where the validity of a treaty or statute of the United States is drawn in question or where the validity of a statute of any State is drawn in question on the ground of its being repugnant to the Constitution, treaties, or laws of the United States, or where any title, right, privilege, or immunity is specially set up or claimed under the Constitution or the treaties or statutes of, or any commission held or authority exercised under, the United States. (b) For the purposes of this section, the term “highest court of a State” includes the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. 28 U.S.C. § 1257. In Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 416, 44 S.Ct. 149, 68 L.Ed. 362 (1923), a statutory predecessor to § 1257(a) was construed to vest exclusive jurisdiction in the Supreme Court to review decisions issued by state courts. The rule established in Rooker was reaffirmed in District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 103 S.Ct. 1303, 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983). In Feldman, the Supreme Court declared that federal district courts did not have jurisdiction to entertain “challenges to state-court decisions in particular cases arising out of judicial proceedings.” Feldman, 460 U.S. at 486, 103 S.Ct. 1303 (emphasis added). The decisions in Rooker and Feldman gave rise to the so-called “Rooker-Feldman doctrine.” Payne v. Lampe, 665 F.3d 506, 518, n. 15 (3d Cir.2011). Prior to the Supreme Court’s decision in Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 283, 125 S.Ct. 1517, 161 L.Ed.2d 454 (2005), some federal courts erroneously construed the doctrine “to extend far beyond the contours of the Rooker and Feldman cases.” In Exxon Mobil, the Supreme Court narrowed the reach of the doctrine by stating as follows: The Rooker-Feldman doctrine, we hold today, is confined to cases of the kind from which the doctrine acquired its name: cases brought by state-court losers complaining of injuries caused by state-corni judgments rendered before the district court proceedings commenced and inviting district court review and rejection of those judgments. Rooker-Feldman does not otherwise override or supplant preclusion doctrine or augment the circumscribed doctrines that allow federal courts to stay or dismiss' proceedings in deference to state-court actions. Exxon Mobil, 544 U.S. at 284, 125 S.Ct. 1517 (emphasis added). The Defendants assert that the instant action constitutes an impermissible attempt by PG to have this Court redress injuries caused by the order entered by the Court of Common Pleas on November 3, 3008. Docket No. 31 at 7-9. The record does not clearly establish PG’s status as a “state-court loser.” Exxon Mobil, 544 U.S. at 284, 125 S.Ct. 1517. The action in the Court of Common Pleas was commenced after PG had been informed of the Elections Division’s policy prohibiting the recording of polling activities through open doors and windows. Docket No. 31-1 at 6, ¶ 9. The complaint in equity filed by PG was accompanied by an affidavit signed by Larry Roberts (“Roberts”), who was serving as the Post-Gazette’ s Assistant Managing Editor for Photography. Docket No. 31-1 at 10. In his affidavit, Roberts claimed that photographers working for the Post-Gazette had been denied permission “to photograph from public areas in the direction of the voting machines.” Id. at 10, ¶ 3 (emphasis added). In its brief requesting the issuance of a preliminary injunction, PG stated as follows: Plaintiff undoubtedly has a right to gather the news from areas readily accessible to the public. Defendants seek to impermissibly deprive Plaintiff of that right under color of 25 P.S. § 3060(d) (which states that all non-voters must remain at least ten feet away from the polling place during the progress of voting) and Article 7, Section 4 of the Pennsylvania Constitution (which states that all elections by the citizens shall be by ballot or by such other method as may be prescribed by law provided that secrecy in voting be preserved). On their faces, neither of these provisions authorize the restriction here. Docket No. 31-3 at 7 (emphasis added). PG moved for an order prohibiting election officials from “restricting or interfering with attempts [by its] agents and employees to photograph activities in and around polling places so long as those agents and employees [we]re located in areas accessible to the public or into which they ha[d] otherwise been laiofully admitted.” Docket No. 31-2 at 4 (emphasis added). Judge James later signed an order containing the language that had been proposed by PG. Docket No. 31-4 at 2-3. The Defendants maintain that the language in the order prohibiting the taking of photographs from the interior of a polling place, or from areas within ten feet of the entrance to a polling place, constituted a partial denial of the relief sought by PG. Docket No. 31 at 8. The inference drawn by the Defendants does not inevitably flow from the language of the order or the context of the case. A photographer standing inside of a polling place, or within ten feet of the entrance to a polling place, would not be located in an area “accessible to the public.” Docket No. 31-4 at 2-3. Given the clear mandate of § 3060(d), a photographer cannot be “lawfully admitted” to such an area. 25 Pa. Stat. § 3060(d). Consequently, the relief allegedly “denied” by the Court of Common Pleas appears to have been relief that was never sought by PG in the first place. It is worth noting that the order purported to “grant” PG’s motion for a preliminary injunction. Docket No. 31-4 at 2-3. The order did not contain language suggesting that the motion was being granted only “in part,” or that it was being “denied in part.” Id. The language relied upon by the Defendants was apparently added only to clarify that the Court of Common Pleas was not ordering election officials to permit conduct that would have contravened § 3060(d). In the earlier action, PG challenged a policy that was being enforced “under col- or of’ § 3060(d). Docket No. 31-1 at 7, ¶ 17; Docket No. 31-3 at 7. Seizing on this language, the Defendants attempt to equate the challenge to the “policy” with a challenge to § 3060(d) itself. Docket No. 31 at 8. The language referenced by the parties in their respective filings is contained in § 1983, which creates a cause of action against “[e]very person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws” of the United States. The Supreme Court has held that a governmental officer can act “under color of’ a state statute within the meaning of § 1983 even if his or her actions violate state law. Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167, 171-187, 81 S.Ct. 473, 5 L.Ed.2d 492 (1961). Therefore, it was possible for PG to challenge a policy promulgated and enforced “under color of’ § 3060(d) without directly challenging that statutory provision. PG’s attempt to enjoin the enforcement of the Elections Division’s “policy” cannot be equated with an attempt to enjoin the enforcement of § 3060(d). Docket No. 31-3 at 7. The “policy” challenged by PG four years ago went beyond the requirements of § 3060(d). Nothing in § 3060(d) explicitly prohibits a photographer from taking pictures of polling activities while standing outside of the ten-foot buffer zone. The statutory provision only limits the areas in which “persons” other than “election officers, clerks, machine inspectors, overseers, watchers, persons in the course of voting, persons lawfully giving assistance to voters, and peace and police officers” can “remain” “during the progress of the voting.” 25 Pa. Stat. § 3060(d). The policy at issue in the case before the Court of Common Pleas allegedly “prevented] news photographers who were located in places lawfully accessible to them from photographing in the direction of voting machines.” Docket No. 31-1 at 5, ¶ 7 (emphasis added). The complaint in equity filed by PG sought to vindicate only a “First Amendment right to gather the news from public places.” Id. at 6, ¶ 11 (emphasis added). It referred to the “Pennsylvania Election Code” only in general terms. Id. at 7, ¶ 17. PG mentioned § 3060(d) only once in its brief requesting the issuance of a preliminary injunction, and only for the purpose of satisfying § 1983’s “under color of’ law requirement. Docket No. 31-3 at 7. The documentary record does not support the Defendants’ contention that PG sought an order from the Court of Common Pleas enjoining the enforcement of § 3060(d). Since the language of the order giving effect to § 3060(d) cannot be reasonably construed as a partial denial of the relief sought in that action, PG is not a “state-court loser” for purposes of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Exxon Mobil, 544 U.S. at 284, 125 S.Ct. 1517. In Great Western Mining & Mineral Co. v. Fox Rothschild LLP, 615 F.3d 159, 166 (3d Cir.2010), the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit observed that the causation standard applicable under the Rooker-Feldman framework requires “an inquiry into the source of [a] plaintiffs injury.” In this respect, the applicability of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine frequently turns on “whether the injury complained of in federal court existed prior to the state-court proceedings.” Id. at 167. An injury predating a state-court decision cannot be reasonably said to have been caused by that decision. Hoblock v. Albany County Board of Elections, 422 F.3d 77, 87-88 (2d Cir.2005). Even if it is assumed that PG is a “state-court loser,” the injuries complained of in this action were not caused by the order entered by the Court of Common Pleas. Great Western, 615 F.3d at 166-167. PG’s First Amendment claims are based on injuries caused by the application of § 3060(d). Docket No. 28 at ¶¶ 27-32. That statutory prohibition was enacted and enforced before the issuance of Judge James’ order. Great Western, 615 F.3d at 167. The claims arising under the Equal Protection Clause are not based on injuries attributable to the order. Indeed, the Defendants make no attempt to establish a causal relationship between the issuance of that order and the selective enforcement of § 3060(d) alleged in the amended complaint. Docket No. 31 at 7-9. The Rook-er-Feldman doctrine is not implicated when a federal court is “asked to assess the validity of a rule promulgated in a nonjudieial proceeding.” Feldman, 460 U.S. at 486, 103 S.Ct. 1303. Although “a state-court decision is not reviewable by lower federal courts,” “a statute or rule governing the decision may be challenged in a federal action.” Skinner v. Switzer, — U.S.-,-, 131 S.Ct. 1289, 1298, 179 L.Ed.2d 233 (2011). Because no causal connection exists between the order entered by the Court of Common Pleas and the injuries complained of in the amended complaint, the instant action is not a “case[] arising out of judicial proceedings.” Feldman, 460 U.S. at 486, 103 S.Ct. 1303. The prohibitory injunction entered by the Court of Common Pleas was directed at Allegheny County and the Board. Docket No. 31-4 at 2-3. The sentence recognizing the enforceability of § 3060(d) clearly defined the limits of the injunction. Id. Although Judge James enjoined the enforcement of the policy challenged by PG, he did not enjoin the enforcement of § 3060(d). Id. It is not clear whether the language in the order permitting election officials to enforce § 3060(d) was meant to affirmatively prohibit employees of PG from violating that statute. The documentary record does not explain whether Post-Gazette reporters would be in contempt of the order if they were to locate themselves within § 3060(d)’s ten-foot buffer zone with the permission of a judge of election. That issue, however, has no bearing on the Court’s jurisdiction to entertain this action. In Bolden v. City of Topeka, 441 F.3d 1129 (10th Cir.2006), the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit explained: Appellate review — the type of judicial action barred by Rooker-Feldman consists of a review of the proceedings already conducted by the “lower” tribunal to determine whether it reached its result in accordance with law. When, in contrast, the second court tries a matter anew and reaches a conclusion contrary to a judgment by the first court, without concerning itself with the bona fides of the prior judgment (which may or may not have been a lawful judgment under the evidence and argument presented to the first court), it is not conducting appellate review, regardless of whether compliance with the second judgment would make it impossible to comply with the first judgment. Bolden, 441 F.3d at 1143. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit appears to have adopted the reasoning employed in Bolden. Great Western, 615 F.3d at 169. Consequently, this Court has jurisdiction to consider the claims asserted by PG even if an injunction permitting Postr-Gazette reporters to go within the ten-foot buffer zone on Election Day would authorize conduct prohibited by Judge James’ order. Since the constitutional validity of § 3060(d) was not at issue in the earlier case, the instant action does not invite “review and rejection” of the judgment entered by the Court of Common Pleas. Exxon Mobil, 544 U.S. at 284, 125 S.Ct. 1517. The constitutional challenge brought by PG “encounters no Rooker-Feldman shoal.” Skinner, 131 S.Ct. at 1297. Given that no jurisdictional defect exists, the claims asserted by PG are “governed by preclusion law.” Exxon Mobil, 544 U.S. at 293, 125 S.Ct. 1517. B. Preclusion The Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution requires the courts of one State to give preclusive effect to the judgments rendered by the courts of another State. Riley v. New York Trust Co., 315 U.S. 343, 348-349, 62 S.Ct. 608, 86 L.Ed. 885 (1942). “A final judgment in one State, if rendered by a court with adjudicatory authority over the subject matter and persons governed by the judgment, qualifies for recognition throughout the land” and “gains nationwide force.” Baker v. General Motors Corp., 522 U.S. 222, 233, 118 S.Ct. 657, 139 L.Ed.2d 580 (1998). Federal courts are not constitutionally required to give preclusive effect to the judgments issued by state tribunals. Kremer v. Chemical Con struction Corp., 456 U.S. 461, 483, n. 24, 102 S.Ct. 1883, 72 L.Ed.2d 262 (1982) (remarking that federal courts are “not included within the constitutional provision”). When a judgment is rendered by a state court, federal courts are statutorily required to accord that judgment preclusive effect under 28 U.S.C. § 1738. The applicable statutory language provides that “[t]he Acts of legislature of any State, Territory, or Possession of the United States ... shall have the same full faith and credit in every court within the United States and its Territories and Possessions as they have by law or usage in the courts of such State, Territory or Possession from which they are taken.” 28 U.S.C. § 1738. “This statute has long been understood to encompass the doctrines of res judicata, or ‘claim preclusion,’ and collateral estoppel, or ‘issue preclusion.’ ” San Remo Hotel, L.P. v. City & County of San Francisco, 545 U.S. 323, 336, 125 S.Ct. 2491, 162 L.Ed.2d 315 (2005) (emphasis added). “Claim preclusion generally refers to the effect of a prior judgment in foreclosing successive litigation of the very same claim, whether or not relitigation of the claim raises the same issues as the earlier suit. Issue preclusion generally refers to the effect of a prior judgment in foreclosing successive litigation of an issue of fact or law actually litigated and resolved in a valid court determination essential to the prior judgment, whether or not the issue arises on the same or a different claim.” New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742, 748-749, 121 S.Ct. 1808, 149 L.Ed.2d 968 (2001). A federal court must give a judgment issued by a state court the same preclusive effect that it would be accorded in the courts of the relevant State. Parsons Steel, Inc. v. First Alabama Bank, 474 U.S. 518, 523, 106 S.Ct. 768, 88 L.Ed.2d 877 (1986). Unlike the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which relates to a federal court’s subject-matter jurisdiction, preclusion is an affirmative defense. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(c)(1); Exxon Mobil, 544 U.S. at 293, 125 S.Ct. 1517; Great Western, 615 F.3d at 173. The Secretary raises this defense by arguing that the claims asserted by PG are barred by “substantive principles of preclusion.” Docket No. 31 at 9, n. 8; Docket No. 40 at 1. This argument must be considered under the applicable principles of both “claim preclusion” and “issue preclusion.” In Balent v. City of Wilkes-Barre, 542 Pa. 555, 669 A.2d 309 (1995), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court made the following observations about the doctrine of claim preclusion: Res judicata, or claim preclusion, is a doctrine by which a former adjudication bars a later action on all or part of the claim which was the subject of the first action. Any final, valid judgment on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction precludes any future suit between the parties or their privies on the same cause of action. Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 94, 101 S.Ct. 411, 66 L.Ed.2d 308 (1980). Res judicata applies not only to claims actually litigated, but also to claims which could have been litigated during the first proceeding if they were part of the same cause of action. Id. Balent, 669 A.2d at 313 (emphasis in original). The judgment presently at issue was entered shortly before the 2008 general election. Docket No. 31-4 at 2-3. PG’s claims under the Equal Protection Clause are based primarily on conduct occurring during and after that election. Docket No. 28 at ¶¶ 14-18, 34-36, 38-39. To the extent that those claims are premised on conduct occurring after the entry of Judge James’ order, they “could not have been litigated” during the earlier proceeding. Balent, 669 A.2d at 313. The critical question concerning PG’s other constitutional claims centers on whether they involve “the same cause of action” as those asserted in the previous case. Id. Under Pennsylvania law, “the mere advancement of a different legal theory does not necessarily give rise to a different cause of action.” Turner v. Crawford Square Apartments III, L.P., 449 F.3d 542, 549 (3d Cir.2006). On the other hand, similarities relating to “one aspect of the relief sought” do not render separate causes of action identical. In re Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 328 Pa.Super. 442, 454, 477 A.2d 527, 533 (1984). It is entirely possible for separate causes of action to arise “out of the same set of factual circumstances.” McArdle v. Tronetti, 426 Pa.Super. 607, 627 A.2d 1219, 1222 (1993). An important factor in determining whether two lawsuits are based on the same cause of action is whether the relief sought in the second action is “essentially identical” to the relief sought in the first action. Turner, 449 F.3d at 549, n. 12. As discussed earlier, the action commenced in the Court of Common Pleas concerned the constitutionality of a county policy governing the conduct of reporters and photographers “located in areas accessible to the public.” Docket No. 31-2 at 4; Docket No. 31-4 at 2-3. The instant action involves a constitutional challenge to a state statute governing the location of reporters and photographers on Election Day. Docket No. 28 at ¶¶ 10, 13, 27, 31. Athough these issues both relate to the ability of Post-Gazette employees to cover polling activities, they lack the “identity” necessary for the application of claim preclusion. McArdle, 627 A.2d at 1222-1223. A party attempting to invoke the defense of issue preclusion must demonstrate that the relevant factual or legal issue was “actually litigated and determined by a valid and final judgment.” County of Berks ex rel. Baldwin v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board, 544 Pa. 541, 678 A.2d 355, 359 (1996). The constitutionality of § 3060(d) was not litigated during the earlier action. In that case, PG sought only an order protecting its “First Amendment right to gather the news from public places.” Docket No. 31-1 at 6, ¶ 11 (emphasis added). Consequently, the order entered by the Court of Common Pleas does not preclude PG from challenging the validity of § 3060(d) in this Court. Even if the Defendants could establish the applicability of issue preclusion under these circumstances, a question would remain as to whether this case falls within an exception to the general rule prohibiting the relitigation of legal issues. The Restatement (Second) of Judgments recognizes that a legal issue “litigated and determined by a valid and final judgment” may need to be relitigated where “a new determination is warranted in order to take account of an intervening change in the applicable legal context or otherwise to avoid inequitable administration of the laws.” Restatement (Second) of Judgments, § 28(2). Pennsylvania has adopted this portion of the Restatement. Clark v. Troutman, 509 Pa. 336, 502 A.2d 137, 139-141 (1985). PG seeks an order permitting its photographers “to record voters as they register with election officials.” Docket No. 28 at ¶ 30. The relief sought by PG is tailored to facilitate media coverage of the enforcement and implementation of Act 18. Id. at ¶¶ 20-22. The passage of Act 18 arguably constituted a change in the “legal context” of § 3060(d)’s enforcement. Clark, 502 A.2d at 139-141. Furthermore, PG’s claims under the Equal Protection Clause are grounded in the allegedly “inequitable administration” of § 3060(d). Docket No. 28 at ¶¶ 14-18, 34-36, 38-39. In these respects, the application of preclusion principles to this case would not necessarily result in the dismissal of PG’s claims even if the Defendants could show that the constitutionality of § 3060(d) was decided by the Court of Common Pleas. Since the constitutional validity of § 3060(d) was never litigated in the earlier action, the Court has no occasion to consider whether the claims asserted by PG would otherwise fall within an exception to the general rule of preclusion. It suffices to say that the applicability of the general rule cannot be established in the first place. C. Governmental Immunity A plaintiff bringing a personal-capacity claim against a governmental official seeks to hold the official personally liable for his or her misconduct. Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 165, 105 S.Ct. 3099, 87 L.Ed.2d 114 (1985). “An award of damages entered against a personal-capacity defendant can be executed only against his or her ‘personal assets.’ ” Douglas v. Brookville Area School District, 836 F.Supp.2d 329, 353 (W.D.Pa.2011), quoting Graham, 473 U.S. at 166, 105 S.Ct. 3099. A personal-capacity defendant can sometimes invoke “personal immunity defenses” to defeat a plaintiffs claim. Graham, 473 U.S. at 166-167, 105 S.Ct. 3099. Nonetheless, an individual sued in his or her personal capacity cannot rely on the immunity defenses available to governmental units. Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21, 27-31, 112 S.Ct. 358, 116 L.Ed.2d 301 (1991). A claim brought against a public official in his or her official capacity is not materially different from a claim brought directly against his or her employing governmental entity. Douglas, 836 F.Supp.2d at 353. An award of damages entered against an official-capacity defendant can be executed only against the entity of which he or she is an agent. Graham, 473 U.S. at 166, 105 S.Ct. 3099. “The only immunities available to a defendant sued in his or her official capacity are those available to the governmental entity itself.” Douglas, 836 F.Supp.2d at 353. The distinction between personal-capacity claims and official-capacity claims turns on the capacity in which a defendant is sued. Hafer, 502 U.S. at 27, 112 S.Ct. 358. It does not turn on the capacity in which he or she has acted. Id. at 27-31, 112 S.Ct. 358. A public official may be held personally liable for his or her official acts. Douglas, 836 F.Supp.2d at 353. At oral argument, counsel for PG clarified that only official-capacity claims are being asserted against the Secretary and the Division Manager. Docket No. 41 at 148. Therefore, the Commonwealth and the Elections Division are “the real part[ies] in interest.” Hafer, 502 U.S. at 25, 112 S.Ct. 358. In this context, the Secretary and the Division Manager can invoke only the “forms of sovereign immunity” available to those entities. Graham, 473 U.S. at 167, 105 S.Ct. 3099. The Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution provides: The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State. U.S. Const., Amend. XI. Although its precise language does not preclude a federal court from exercising jurisdiction over an action brought by an individual against the State of which he or she is a citizen, the Eleventh Amendment has been construed “to stand not so much for what it says, but for the presupposition of our constitutional structure which it confirms.” Blatchford v. Native Village of Noatak, 501 U.S. 775, 779, 111 S.Ct. 2578, 115 L.Ed.2d 686 (1991). “This presupposition is based on the understanding that ‘the States entered the federal system with their sovereignty intact,’ that ‘[t]he Judicial power of the United States’ is limited by this sovereignty, and that a State will not be subjected to suits in federal court brought by private individuals unless it has consented to such suits either expressly or in the ‘plan of the convention.’ ” Burns v. Alexander, 776 F.Supp.2d 57, 72 (W.D.Pa.2011), quoting Blatchford, 501 U.S. at 779, 111 S.Ct. 2578. The States’ act of ratifying the Constitution did not constitute a waiver of their immunity from suits brought by private individuals. Sossamon v. Texas, — U.S. -,-, 131 S.Ct. 1651, 1657-1658, 179 L.Ed.2d 700 (2011). Pennsylvania has expressly declined to waive its sovereign immunity. 42 Pa. Cons.Stat. § 8521(b). Congress has the constitutional authority to “enforce” the substantive provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment. U.S. Const., Amend. XIV, § 5. The United States Supreme Court has held that “Congress may, in determining what is ‘appropriate legislation’ for the purpose of enforcing the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment, provide for private suits against States or state officials which are constitutionally impermissible in other contexts.” Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U.S. 445, 456, 96 S.Ct. 2666, 49 L.Ed.2d 614 (1976) (footnote omitted). If it wishes to abrogate the States’ immunity from suit, Congress must make its intention “unmistakably clear in the language of the statute” authorizing the types of civil actions in question. Atascadero State Hospital v. Scanlon, 473 U.S. 234, 242, 105 S.Ct. 3142, 87 L.Ed.2d 171 (1985). The “general language” of § 1983 has not been construed to abrogate the States’ Eleventh Amendment immunity. Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 342-345, 99 S.Ct. 1139, 59 L.Ed.2d 358 (1979). In the same vein, the Supreme Court has held that a State is not a “person” amenable to private suits for money damages under § 1983. Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 62-71, 109 S.Ct. 2304, 105 L.Ed.2d 45 (1989). This rule applies with equal force to claims brought against state officials in their official capacities. Id. at 71, 109 S.Ct. 2304. As a general matter, the nature of the relief sought by a private litigant has no bearing on whether his or her action is barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44, 58, 116 S.Ct. 1114, 134 L.Ed.2d 252 (1996). Nevertheless, this general principle has been qualified by the “fiction” that “when a federal court commands a state official to do nothing more than refrain from violating federal law, [the official] is not the State for sovereign-immunity purposes.” Virginia Office for Protection & Advocacy v. Stewart, — U.S.-,-, 131 S.Ct. 1632, 1638, 179 L.Ed.2d 675 (2011). In Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 159-160, 28 S.Ct. 441, 52 L.Ed. 714 (1908), the Supreme Court recognized the authority of a federal court to enjoin a state official’s enforcement of an unconstitutional statute. Speaking through Justice Peekham, the Supreme Court declared: The act to be enforced is alleged to be unconstitutional, and if it be so, the use of the name of the State to enforce an unconstitutional act to the injury of complainants is a proceeding without the authority of and one which does not affect the State in its sovereign or governmental capacity. It is simply an illegal act upon the part of a state official in attempting by the use of the name of the State to enforce a legislative enactment which is void because unconstitutional. If the act which the state Attorney General seeks to enforce be a violation of the Federal Constitution, the officer in proceeding under such enactment comes into conflict with the superior authority of that Constitution, and he is in that case stripped of his official or representative character and is subjected in his person to the consequences of his individual conduct. The State has no power to impart to him any immunity from responsibility to the supreme authority of the United States. Young, 209 U.S. at 159-160, 28 S.Ct. 441. Pursuant to the reasoning employed in Young, “an official-capacity action brought against a state official by a plaintiff seeking prospective relief is not treated as an action against the State.” Burns, 776 F.Supp.2d at 73. Moreover, a state official sued in his or her official capacity for prospective relief is a “person” amenable to suit under § 1983. Will, 491 U.S. at 71, n. 10, 109 S.Ct. 2304. The foregoing principles govern the claims asserted against the Secretary in this case. PG’s attempt to recover money damages from the Secretary is, “in all respects other than name,” an attempt to recover money damages from the Commonwealth. Graham, 473 U.S. at 166, 105 S.Ct. 3099. To the extent that PG seeks monetary relief, the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain its claims against the Secretary. Sossamon, 131 S.Ct. at 1657-1658. Even in the absence of a jurisdictional defect, the claims for money damages would nevertheless fail for the independent reason that the Secretary, when sued in her official capacity, is not a “person” subject to liability under § 1983. Will, 491 U.S. at 71, 109 S.Ct. 2304. PG’s claims against the Secretary are not barred by the Eleventh Amendment to the extent that they seek prospective relief. Burns, 776 F.Supp.2d at 73. In accordance with the “fiction” embraced in Young, the Secretary “is not the State for sovereign-immunity purposes” when she is ordered “to do nothing more than refrain from violating federal law.” Stewart, 131 S.Ct. at 1638. Instead, she is a “person” amenable to suit for injunctive relief. Will, 491 U.S. at 71, n. 10, 109 S.Ct. 2304. Accordingly, the Secretary enjoys no immunity from PG’s request that she be enjoined from enforcing § 3060(d). Unlike the Commonwealth, Allegheny County is not entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. Board of Trustees v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356, 369, 121 S.Ct. 955, 148 L.Ed.2d 866 (2001) (observing that “the Eleventh Amendment does not extend its immunity to units of local government”). In Monell v. Dept. of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 687-691, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978), the Supreme Court held that local governments are “persons” amenable to private suits for money damages brought under § 1983. Consequently, PG can seek monetary, declaratory and injunctive relief against the Division Manager in his official capacity. Mon