IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

PAMELA GRAYSON, §

PLAINTIFF, §

 §

V. § CASE NO. 3:22-CV- 1119-M-BK

 §

DALLAS POLICE DEPARTMENT, ET AL., §

DEFENDANTS. § 

 

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION 

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Special Order 3, this cause is before the Court for a 

recommendation on Defendant Texas Department of Public Safety’s Motion to Dismiss filed 

pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Doc. 11. For the reasons that 

follow, the motion should be GRANTED.

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against more 

than 20 Defendants in connection with their actions surrounding a protest Plaintiff attended in 

the aftermath of George Floyd’s death. Doc. 3, passim. As relevant here, Plaintiff asserts claims 

against the Texas Department of Public Safety (“DPS”) for alleged violations of her 

constitutional rights and seeks an award of monetary damages. Doc 3, passim. DPS now moves 

to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction based on Eleventh 

Amendment immunity. Doc. 11 at 3-4.

II. ANALYSIS

A district court must dismiss a case when the plaintiff fails to establish subject matter 

Case 3:22-cv-01119-M-BK Document 88 Filed 01/31/23 Page 1 of 3 PageID 520
2

jurisdiction. FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(1). Sovereign immunity, as imparted by the Eleventh 

Amendment, deprives a court of jurisdiction. Williams ex rel. J.E. v. Reeves, 954 F.3d 729, 735 

(5th Cir. 2020) (citing Warnock v. Pecos Cty., 88 F.3d 341, 343 (5th Cir. 1996)). As such, 

claims barred by sovereign immunity can be dismissed only under Rule 12(b)(1) and must be 

dismissed without prejudice. Id. Without question, DPS is a state agency shielded by Eleventh 

Amendment immunity from claims for monetary damages. See Fontenot v. McCraw, 777 F.3d 

741, 755 (5th Cir. 2015) (holding that the plaintiffs’ claims against a DPS official for monetary 

damages were barred by the Eleventh Amendment); Reimer v. Smith, 663 F.2d 1316, 1322-23 

(5th Cir. 1981). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s claims against DPS must be dismissed.

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Texas Department of Public Safety’s Motion to 

Dismiss, Doc. 11, should be GRANTED and Plaintiff’s claims against DPS should be 

DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

SO RECOMMENDED on January 31, 2023.

Case 3:22-cv-01119-M-BK Document 88 Filed 01/31/23 Page 2 of 3 PageID 521
3

INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE AND 

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL/OBJECT

A copy of this report and recommendation will be served on all parties in the manner provided by 

law. Any party who objects to any part of this report and recommendation must file specific written 

objections within 14 days after being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. CIV.

P. 72(B). An objection must identify the finding or recommendation to which objection is made, 

state the basis for the objection, and indicate where in the magistrate judge’s report and 

recommendation the disputed determination is found. An objection that merely incorporates by 

reference or refers to the briefing before the magistrate judge is not specific. Failure to file specific 

written objections will bar the aggrieved party from appealing the factual findings and legal 

conclusions of the magistrate judge that are accepted or adopted by the district court, except upon 

grounds of plain error. See Douglass v. United Services Automobile Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 

(5th Cir. 1996), modified by statute on other grounds, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time 

to file objections to 14 days).

Case 3:22-cv-01119-M-BK Document 88 Filed 01/31/23 Page 3 of 3 PageID 522