Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-19-11191/USCOURTS-ca5-19-11191-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Samuel T. Russell
Appellant
State of Texas
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-11191

Summary Calendar

SAMUEL T. RUSSELL, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

STATE OF TEXAS, Education Agency, 

 Defendant - Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:19-CV-430

Before KING, GRAVES, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Plaintiff–appellant Samuel Russell, a resident of Texas, sued defendant–

appellee the State of Texas in federal district court. Claiming that Texas failed 

to answer his complaint timely, Russell moved for a default judgment.1 The 

district court denied the motion, and another panel of this court dismissed 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

1 Texas maintains that it was improperly served. This dispute is immaterial to our 

resolution of the case.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 8, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 19-11191 Document: 00515375386 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/08/2020
No. 19-11191

2

Russell’s interlocutory appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction. The district 

court subsequently dismissed the lawsuit on sovereign-immunity grounds. Cf.

Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100 (1984) (“[I]n the 

absence of consent a suit in which [a] State or one of its agencies or 

departments is named as the defendant is proscribed by the Eleventh 

Amendment.”).

In his principal brief on appeal, Russell, pro se, argues that his motion 

for a default judgment should have been granted, but he fails to address the 

basis for the district court’s adverse judgment, sovereign immunity. Then, in 

his reply, Russell argues that the Eleventh Amendment, by its plain language,

bars suits against states only “by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or 

Subjects of any Foreign State,” U.S. Const. amend. XI. As a citizen of Texas, 

Russell asserts that the Eleventh Amendment does not bar him from suing

Texas. 

Russell’s argument has been foreclosed for well over a century. See Hans 

v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1, 10-16 (1890); see also Pennhurst, 465 U.S. at 98 (“[I]n 

Hans v. Louisiana, the Court held that, despite the limited terms of the 

Eleventh Amendment, a federal court could not entertain a suit brought by a 

citizen against his own State.” (citation omitted)). Because Russell does not 

show that Texas has consented to his suit, or that Congress has abrogated 

Texas’s sovereign immunity in this context, cf. Pennhurst, 465 U.S. at 99, his 

suit cannot proceed.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Case: 19-11191 Document: 00515375386 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/08/2020