IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AMARILLO DIVISION

KAREEM A. LATEEF, JR., §

§

Plaintiff, §

§

v. § 2:22-CV-093-Z-BR

§

MEDICAL DEPARTMENT, et al., §

§

Defendant. §

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION

TO DISMISS § 1983 CLAIM

 This matter comes before the undersigned upon review of the Complaint, (ECF 3), as 

required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. For the reasons that follow, it is the recommendation of the 

undersigned United States Magistrate Judge to the United States District Judge that the Complaint 

be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and lack 

of jurisdiction. 

I. BACKGROUND

 On April 27, 2022, Plaintiff submitted a handwritten pleading seeking to initiate a civil 

rights action against a number of entity Defendants for their collective conduct in response to 

Plaintiff’s reported sexual assault. (ECF 3). In short, Plaintiff alleges he was the victim of a 

sexual assault perpetrated by a fellow inmate. (Id. at 4). After submitting a report, Plaintiff 

alleges no examination of his person or investigation of his claim was conducted. (Id.). On 

March 3, 2023, the undersigned issued an Order to the Attorney General of Texas (“OAG”) to 

investigate Plaintiff’s claims and submit its findings to aid the undersigned in assessing their 

Case 2:22-cv-00093-Z-BR Document 9 Filed 07/17/23 Page 1 of 4 PageID 44
Page 2 of 4

validity. (ECF 6). OAG declined on May 25, 2023, citing various Fifth Circuit precedent and 

11th Amendment immunity. (ECF 8). 

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

28 U.S.C. § 1915A requires district courts to, “as soon as practicable,” review “a complaint 

in a civil action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee 

of a governmental entity.” The complaint is to be dismissed if it fails to state a claim upon which 

relief can be granted. Id.

III. ANALYSIS

It is black letter law that states are immune from suit under the terms of the Eleventh 

Amendment. Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson, 142 S.Ct. 522, 532 (2021). This immunity is 

jurisdictional in nature. Watson v. Texas, 261 F.3d 436, 440 (5th Cir. 2001). Indeed, our federal 

Constitution does not contemplate federal jurisdiction over suits against nonconsenting states. Id. 

Of course, Plaintiff does not bring suit against the State of Texas itself; instead, he brings 

his claims against several entities apparently tied to his unit of incarceration, the William P. 

Clements Unit of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division 

(“TDCJ-CID”). (ECF 3). To ascertain whether the immunity afforded to the state extends to the 

entities named here, the Fifth Circuit has prescribed a six-factor test. Hudson v. City of New 

Orleans, 174 F.3d 677, 681 (5th Cir. 1999). However, not all the factors are created equal. 

“Because an important goal of the Eleventh Amendment is the protection of state treasuries, [the 

second factor is] the most significant factor in assessing an entity's status.” Delahoussaye v. City 

of New Iberia, 937 F.2d 144, 147–48 (5th Cir. 1991). That factor directs courts to “the source of 

the entity’s funding.” Hudson, 174 F.3d at 681. Other factors to consider include whether the state 

Case 2:22-cv-00093-Z-BR Document 9 Filed 07/17/23 Page 2 of 4 PageID 45
Page 3 of 4

itself views the entity as an arm of the state, the entity’s degree of autonomy, the focus of the 

entity, whether the entity exists for juridical purposes, and whether the entity can hold and use 

property. Id.

The listed Defendants in this action are the Medical Department, the Safe Prisons 

Department, the Office of Inspector General, TDCJ-CID, and the Unit Classification Department. 

(ECF 3). It is facially apparent that each of these entities are arms of the state government such 

that they are immune from suit because they derive their funding from state coffers and the state 

views the entities are one with itself. See Texas State Agencies & Departments, 

https://www.texas.gov/texas-state-agencies-departments/ (last visited June 29, 2023). 

Furthermore, the entities themselves are concerned with administration of Texas prisons, an 

undoubtedly statewide interest. On balance, then, it is clear the entities listed are arms of the state 

and are thus afforded immunity from suit.1 Cox v. Texas, 354 F. App’x 901, 903 (5th Cir. 2009). 

It may be that Plaintiff has one or more viable claims to pursue. However, he may not 

pursue them against entity Defendants who possess immunity from suit. 

IV. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

For the foregoing reasons, it is the recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge 

to the United States District Judge that the Complaint, (ECF 3), be dismissed with prejudice for 

1 The undersigned offers one caveat as to the Medical Department. It is known to the undersigned that 

medical services in some Texas state prisons are obtained through outside contractors. Accordingly, the undersigned 

concludes that if the Medical Department, as named in Plaintiff’s suit, is not an arm of the state in that it formally 

exists and has state employees serving within it, it does not exist as a jural entity and thus cannot be subject to this 

action because the third party provider would be the proper defendant, not simply ‘the Medical Department.’. Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 17(b); see also Moody v. Moody, 613 S.W.3d 707, 714 (Tex.App.—Houston (14th Dist.) 2020, pet. 

denied).

Case 2:22-cv-00093-Z-BR Document 9 Filed 07/17/23 Page 3 of 4 PageID 46
Page 4 of 4

failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and, consequently, lack of jurisdiction. As 

to these named Defendants, is further recommended that this matter be considered a strike within 

the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

V. INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE

The United States District Clerk is directed to send a copy of these Findings, Conclusions 

and Recommendation to each party by the most efficient means available.

IT IS SO RECOMMENDED. 

ENTERED July 17, 2023.

* NOTICE OF RIGHT TO OBJECT *

Any party may object to these proposed findings, conclusions and recommendation. In 

the event parties wish to object, they are hereby NOTIFIED that the deadline for filing objections 

is fourteen (14) days from the date of filing as indicated by the “entered” date directly above the 

signature line. Service is complete upon mailing, Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(C), or transmission by 

electronic means, Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(E). Any objections must be filed on or before the 

fourteenth (14th) day after this recommendation is filed as indicated by the “entered” date. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d).

Any such objections shall be made in a written pleading entitled “Objections to the 

Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation.” Objecting parties shall file the written objections 

with the United States District Clerk and serve a copy of such objections on all other parties. A 

party’s failure to timely file written objections shall bar an aggrieved party, except upon grounds 

of plain error, from attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed factual findings, legal 

conclusions, and recommendation set forth by the Magistrate Judge and accepted by the district 

court. See Douglass v. United Services Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996) (en 

banc), superseded by statute on other grounds, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), as recognized in ACS 

Recovery Servs., Inc. v. Griffin, 676 F.3d 512, 521 n.5 (5th Cir. 2012); Rodriguez v. Bowen, 857 

F.2d 275, 276-77 (5th Cir. 1988).

Case 2:22-cv-00093-Z-BR Document 9 Filed 07/17/23 Page 4 of 4 PageID 47