Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:00-CV-236 C
June 26, 2003
ORDER
Came to be considered on this day, "Defendant Marley Cribb's Partial Motion to Dismiss Under Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), Original Answer, and Jury Demand."
Plaintiff Rodriguez filed an Amended Complaint and was allowed to proceed in forma pauperis. The United States Magistrate Judge conducted a Spears evidentiary hearing and issued a Report of Spears Hearing. By Order dated June 11, 2003, this Court ordered Defendant Cribbs to file an answer within seven days from the date of the Order to avoid being held in contempt of court or the entry of a default judgment against him. Defendant Cribbs filed his answer and motion to dismiss alleging that he is entitled to sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment for the monetary claims against him in his official capacity and for the claims alleged under the Texas Tort Claims Act.
"The Eleventh Amendment bars claims against a state brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983" unless the state has expressly consented to the suit. Aguilar v. Texas Dept. of Criminal Justice, 160 F.3d 1052, 1054 (5th Cir. 1998). Furthermore, "[s]uits against state officials in their official capacity are considered to be suits against the individual's office, and so are generally barred as suits against the state itself. . . ." Wallace v. Texas Tech University, 80 F.3d 1042, 1047 n. 3 (5th Cir. 1996).
A court may find that the state has waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity "only where stated `by the most express language or by such overwhelming implications from the text as [will] leave no room for any other reasonable construction. "` Sherwinski v. Peterson, 98 F.3d 849, 852 (5th Cir. 1996) (quoting Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 673 (1974) (quoting Murray v. Wilson Distilling Co., 213 U.S. 151, 171 (1909))). "A state does not waive Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts merely by waiving sovereign immunity in its own courts." Id. at 851-52. The Fifth Circuit has determined that the Texas Tort Claims Act "waives sovereign immunity in state court only"; therefore, a plaintiff may not sue the State of Texas in federal court under the Texas Tort Claims Act absent an express waiver of the immunity. Id. at 852.
Finally, this Court notes that the Supreme Court carved out a limited exception to Eleventh Amendment immunity in Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908). Aguilar v. Texas Dept. of Criminal Justice, 160 F.3d at 1054. "To meet the Ex Parte Young exception, a plaintiff's suit alleging a violation of federal law must be brought against individual persons in their official capacities as agents of the state, and the relief sought must be declaratory or injunctive in nature and prospective in effect." Id. See Wallace v. Texas Tech University, 80 F.3d at 1047 n. 3 (holding that claims for prospective injunctive relief brought against state officials in their official capacities are not suits against the state). "Jurisdiction over a plaintiff's claims for future relief is appropriate only if a reasonable likelihood exists that the plaintiff will again be subjected to the allegedly unconstitutional actions." Wallace v. Texas Tech University, 80 F.3d at 1047 n. 3.
The Court finds that
(1) Plaintiffs suit for monetary damages against Defendant Cribbs, as an employee of the TDCJ-ID in his official capacity, is barred by the Eleventh Amendment doctrine of sovereign immunity.
(2) The State of Texas has not expressly waived its sovereign immunity for purposes of the Texas Tort Claims Act; therefore, this Court is without jurisdiction to consider those state claims.
(3) Plaintiff has stated that he has received medical treatment subsequent to his transfer to another prison unit and he does not allege that he has been made to work in any other unsafe conditions; therefore, he has failed to demonstrate that there is a reasonable likelihood that he will be subjected to the allegedly unconstitutional violations in the future.
It is, therefore, ORDERED that
1. Plaintiff s complaint and all claims alleged therein against Defendant Marley Cribbs, in his official capacity as an employee of TDCJ-ID, are dismissed with prejudice. See Talib v. Gilley, 138 F.3d 211, 213 (5th Cir. 1998) ("As an instrumentality of the state, the TDCJ-ID is immune from a suit for money damages under the Eleventh Amendment.").
2. Plaintiff's claims under the Texas Tort Claims Act are dismissed without prejudice to Plaintiff's right to pursue such claims in state court.
Judgment shall be entered accordingly.