## IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

No. 11-30751 Summary Calendar

ELISE ADAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant

v. RECOVERY SCHOOL DISTRICT, through the State of Louisiana, Department of Education, Defendant - Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana No. 2:10-cv-01080-JCZ-SS

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * 

### Plaintiff-appellant Eli s e Adams challenges the district court’s grant of summary judgment to defendant-appellee. Finding no error, we affirm. Adams was employed by the Orleans Parish Recover y S c h o o l District (“RSD”), and served as the principal of the Booker T. Washington school during the 2009-2010 school year. She did not have a contract with RSD, and on January 25, 2010 was ter m i n a t ed from her position. Claiming this was U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

## F I L E D Februa ry 27 , 20 12 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 , the cour t has d ete rm inedt hat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t for th in 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 .4. 

### Case: 11-30751 Document: 00511768396 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/27/2012

### No. 11-30751

wrongful, Adams filed suit under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983 and 1985, and under Loui s i a na state law. Specifically, she claimed that RSD violated her equal protection rights by failing to give her a contract, even though a l l o ther RSD principals were employed under contract, and violated her due process rights by failing to observe remedial steps r e quired under state law. The lawsuit was removed to federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Al though Adams originally sued RSD, she amend e d h e r c o m p l ai nt t o n a m e the Louisiana Department of Education as the defendant. The State of Louisiana, through the Department of Education, t h e n moved for summary judgment. The district court granted that motion in part on the grounds that the Department of Education is an arm of the state of Louisiana and therefore not

a “person” who can be sued under § 1983. It dismissed Adams’s § 1981 claims because they were properly construed as § 1983 claims, and also dismissed her § 1985 claims because Adams failed to make any allegations in support of those claims. Because the o n l y remaining claims were state law allegations, the district court remanded the lawsuit to state court under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). On appeal, Adams challenges the d i s t r ict court’s grant of summary judgment dismissing her § 1983 claims with prejudice. “We r e v i ew a district 1 

### court’s order granting summary j u d g m e nt de novo .” Summary judgment is 2 

### appropriate when “there is no genuine i s s u e a s to any material fact and the movant is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” 3 

### Section 1983 provides a cause of action against any “person” who deprives another person of “any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the

Adam s doe s not pr es ent any argum ent chall enging the dis tri ct cour t’s dis mi ss al of her 1 42 U. S. C

. § § 1981 and 1985 clai ms , or its dec isi on to rem and her st ate law clai ms pur sua nt to 28 U. S. C. § 1367( c) (3)

. She ther efo re has wa ived a n y o bj e c t i on to thos e por tio ns of the judgm ent. See Uni ted Sta tes v. T ham es , 214 F.3d608 , 611 n.3 (5t h Cir

. 2000)

. LeM ai re v. Loui si ana De

pt. of Tra nsp
. and De ve lop me nt , 480 F.3d 383, 386 (5t h Cir. 2 2007)

. F E D

. R. C IV

. P. 56(a).

3


### 2 Case: 11-30751 Document: 00511768396 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/27/2012

### No. 11-30751

Constitution and laws” of the United while acting “under color” of st a t e law. 4 

### For purposes of § 1983, states and arms of a state are not “persons,” and a § 1983 claim may therefore not be brought against those entities or their officials acting in an official capacity. 5 

### Adams originally filed suit against RSD. However, because RSD is not an entity that can sue or be sued, she requested leave to file an amended complaint 6 

### “in order to name the proper party as a defendant in this matter” “in place of the [RSD].” The court granted leave, and Adams’s amended complaint named the Louisiana Department of Education as the defendant, stating that “[t]h e DOE [Department of Education] is a juridicial [sic] entity capable of suing and being sued and is the proper defendant in cases against the Orleans Parish Recovery School District.” At the time of summary judgment, the defendant was therefore the D e p a r t m e n t of Education. That Department is an arm of the state of Louisiana, and does not qualify as a “person” who may be sued under § 1983. 7 

### Recognizing this, th e d i strict court properly dismissed Adams’s §1983 claims, and remanded her state law claims to the state court. 8

42 U. S. C. § 1 983. 4
W i l l v. Mi chigan De

pt. of State Poli ce , 491 U. S. 58, 64, 71 (198 9) (ho ldi ng that the 5 plai ntif f coul d not sue t h e s t a te of Mic higan thr ough its De par tm ent of Sta te Polic e or the Di rec tor of Sta te Polic e in his off icia l cap acit y beca use “nei ther a Sta te nor its off icia ls act ing in thei r off

icia l c apac itie s are “p ers ons ” unde r § 1 983. ”)

. See LSA-R. S. § 17: 1990; Tan kerson v. Va llas , 34 So. 3d 355, 358 (La. App

. 4 Cir. 2010) 6 (“ We conc lude t hat the RSD

.. .is not a body cor por ate ca pabl e of being s ued orsuing dir ect ly. The pr ope r par ty in any c laim by or agains t the RSD is t he [D epa rtm ent of Educ atio n]. ”)
See Will , 491 U. S. at 64; see also C her am ie v. Tuck er , 493 F.2d 586, 587–88 (5th Cir. 7 1974) (“ It is we ll es tabl ish ed that st ates and thei r pol itic a l s u b d i v i s i ons are not ‘pe rs ons ’
w i t h in the me aning of 42 U. S. C. § 1983. The sam e can be sai d of the variou s arm s of s t a t e governm ent suc h as the De par tm ent of Hi ghwa ys. ”) ; Irw i n v
. Mi am i- Da de Cnty. Publi c Schoo ls , 398 Fed. App x. 503, at *3 (11t h C ir. 2010) (ho ldi ng that the Flori da De par tm ent of Edu c a t i o n is a st ate agency and ther efo re not a “p ers on” wh o can be sue d unde r § 1983)

. Adam s doe s not cont es t that the De par tm ent of Educ atio n is an arm of the Sta te of Louis iana.
Brook shi re Bros

. Ho ldi ng, Inc. v. Da yco Pr o d s , In c
. , 554 F.3d 595, 601–02 (5t h Cir. 8 2009)

. 

### 3 Case: 11-30751 Document: 00511768396 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/27/2012

### No. 11-30751

In her brief, Adams argues that summary j u d gment was inappropriate because RSD is a person under § 1983, and because RSD shou l d n o t receive immunity f

r o m s u i t under the Eleventh Amendment. RSD, however, was no longer the actua l d e f e ndant at the time of summary judgment. Adams’s arguments are therefore unavailing, and provide no basis for relief. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

4 Case: 11-30751 Document: 00511768396 Page: 4 Date Filed: 02/27/2012