IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

WICHITA FALLS DIVISION

RUSSELL THOMPSON, et al., § 

Plaintiffs, § 

 § 

v. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 7:22-CV-014-O 

 § 

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF § 

PUBLIC SAFETY, et al., § 

Defendants. § 

________________________________________________________________________ 

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY’S MOTION TO QUASH

________________________________________________________________________ 

I. BACKGROUND

This lawsuit seeks redress for alleged constitutional violations by Texas State Troopers arising 

from a traffic stop on September 23, 2020. D.E. 1. The Texas Department of Public Safety (“DPS”) 

was originally a party to this suit, but after filing its Motion to Dismiss asserting sovereign immunity 

the Plaintiffs amended their complaint removing DPS as a defendant. D.E. 12. DPS is now a thirdparty to this claim.

II. MOTION TO QUASH

DPS, asserting its sovereign immunity, moves to quash the third-party subpoenas served upon 

it by Plaintiffs. 

The Eleventh Amendment, the Constitution’s affirmation of the fundamental principle of 

sovereign immunity, has long been recognized as a jurisdictional bar to private suits brought in federal 

court against states and their subdivisions. College Sav. Bank v. Fla. Prepaid Postsecondary Educ. Expense 

Bd., 527 U.S. 666, 669-70 (1999). States and their subdivisions may only be sued where there is 

unequivocally expressed consent, or where Congress has validly abrogated sovereign immunity by 

unequivocal expression of intent. Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 98-100 (1982); 

Neinast v. Texas, 217 F.3d 275, 279 (5th Cir. 2000). It is well-settled that DPS, as an arm of the State, 

enjoys sovereign immunity. Ingram v. Tex. Dept. of Pub. Safety, Civ. Action No. 3:01-CV-1944-K, 2003

Case 7:22-cv-00014-O Document 40 Filed 10/23/23 Page 1 of 4 PageID 318
2 

WL 292165, *2 (N.D. Feb. 6, 2003). 

DPS retains is sovereign immunity, regardless of whether or not it is a party to this suit. In 

Russell v. Jones, the Fifth Circuit held sovereign immunity bars third-party subpoenas like those at issue 

here. 49 F.4th 507 (5th Cir. 2022). In Russell, the plaintiffs dismissed claims against Harris County state 

district felony judges after the Fifth Circuit determined that sovereign immunity applies to them. Id.

at 510-11. After dismissing claims against the state district felony judges, plaintiffs served the same 

judges with third-party subpoenas. Id. at 511. 

The Fifth Circuit determined “the indignity that sovereign immunity was designed to prevent 

may arise either when the state is a defendant or when its sovereign prerogatives are subjected to 

individuals through coercive judicial process.” Id. at 514. Subpoenas duces tecum are a coercive judicial 

process. Id. at 515. By compelling a state to produce its papers, a subpoena duces tecum subjects a 

sovereign to the coercive process of judicial tribunals at the instance of private parties. Id. Compelling 

compliance with a subpoena duces tecum violates the “inviolable sovereignty” retained by the states 

through the Constitution. Id. Sovereign immunity applies to state agencies as third parties, not just 

defendants, and where it applies, it applies totally. Id. Simply put, DPS, as an arm of the state, is 

shielded from being haled into court and forced to produce its papers. 

This is not a new concept. In 1868, the Supreme Court said “[states] cannot be subjected to 

legal proceedings at law or in equity without their consent and whoever institutes such proceedings must 

bring his case within the authority of some act of Congress.” The Siren, 74 U.S. 152, 154 (1868)

(emphasis added). 

The State of Texas has not consented to suit against itself or its subdivisions in federal court, 

nor has Congress abrogated Texas and its state agencies’ sovereign immunity in any way applicable to 

Plaintiffs’ claims. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ third-party subpoenas deuces tecum to DPS must be 

quashed because sovereign immunity bars the requested third party discovery.

Case 7:22-cv-00014-O Document 40 Filed 10/23/23 Page 2 of 4 PageID 319
3 

III. PRAYER

DPS requests this Honorable Court quash the subpoenas served upon it by Plaintiffs. 

Respectfully submitted,

KEN PAXTON

Attorney General 

BRENT WEBSTER

First Assistant Attorney General 

GRANT DORFMAN

Deputy First Assistant Attorney General 

JAMES LLOYD

Deputy Attorney General for Civil Litigation

SHANNA E. MOLINARE

Assistant Attorney General 

Chief, Law Enforcement Defense Division

/s/ TROY MOYER

TROY MOYER

Assistant Attorney General 

State Bar No. 24135530 

P.O. Box 12548, Capitol Station 

Austin, Texas 78711 

(512) 463-2080 (Phone No.) 

(512) 370-9314 (Fax No.) 

ATTORNEYS FOR DPS

Case 7:22-cv-00014-O Document 40 Filed 10/23/23 Page 3 of 4 PageID 320
4 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, TROY MOYER, Assistant Attorney General of Texas, do hereby certify that a true and 

correct copy of the foregoing has been served on all parties via electronic servicing on this 23rd

day of October, 2023. 

 /s/ Troy Moyer

TROY MOYER

 Assistant Attorney General 

Case 7:22-cv-00014-O Document 40 Filed 10/23/23 Page 4 of 4 PageID 321