[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 19-10035

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:18-cv-05208-AT

KAREEM OF THE FAMILY HODGE, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 versus

THE TEXAS OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL,

42 U.S.C. 654(3) Child Support Customer

Service Division,

 Defendant - Appellee.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Georgia

________________________

(August 6, 2019)

Case: 19-10035 Date Filed: 08/06/2019 Page: 1 of 4 
2

Before WILLIAM PRYOR, BRANCH, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Kareem Hodge, proceeding pro se, appeals from the district court’s order 

denying his petition for injunction and dismissing the complaint he made pursuant 

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Hodge argues that the district court erred in dismissing his 

claim because he presented “undisputed evidence” that the Texas Attorney 

General’s (“AG”) child support division was an agency “lacking the cloth of 

office of Judicial authority to compel his performance to a contractual debt.” Thus, 

he argues, the court erred in concluding that the Texas AG was immune from suit 

under the Eleventh Amendment. 

We review de novo the grant of a motion to dismiss based upon a state’s 

Eleventh Amendment immunity. In re Emp’t Discrimination Litig. Against State 

of Ala., 198 F.3d 1305, 1310 (11th Cir. 1999). Eleventh Amendment immunity 

bars suits by private individuals against a state in federal court unless the state has 

consented to be sued, has waived its immunity, or Congress has abrogated the 

states’ immunity. Bd. of Trs. of Univ. of Ala. v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356, 363-64 

(2001). The Eleventh Amendment immunity bar includes “state agencies and 

other arms of the state” and applies to garnishment actions. Cassady v. Hall, 892 

F.3d 1150, 1153-54 (11th Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 139 S. Ct. 433 (2018).

Case: 19-10035 Date Filed: 08/06/2019 Page: 2 of 4 
3

Here, the district court did not err in dismissing Hodge’s §1983 complaint 

because the court properly determined that the Texas AG’s child support division 

is immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment. First, this Court has held 

that the Eleventh Amendment bar is applicable in garnishment suits. Hall, 892 

F.3d at 1154. Second, despite his characterization of the child support division as a 

“single and separate” part of the Texas AG’s office, the child support division is 

part of the Texas state government, and there is no documentation in the record—

nor does independent research reveal—that the Texas AG has consented to be sued 

or waived its immunity, or that Congress has abrogated its immunity. See Garrett, 

531 U.S. at 363-64; see also NiGen Biotech, L.L.C. v. Paxton, 804 F.3d 389, 394 

(5th Cir. 2015) (holding that “Texas has not consented by statute, and § 1983 does 

not abrogate state sovereign immunity”); and Office of the Att’y Gen. v. Scholer, 

403 S.W.3d 859, 861 (Tex. 2013) (stating that the child support division’s role 

“derives from federal legislation” and is the “designated IV-D agency in Texas 

[with] the power to enforce child support orders and collect and distribute support 

payments,” including the power to “seek a court order to withhold income”). As a

state agency, the Texas AG and its divisions are immune from suit. Hall, 892 F. 

3d at 1153. 

Hodge’s contention that the Second Circuit’s holding in Johnson v. New 

York, 21 Fed. App’x 41 (2d Cir. 2001), supports his argument is meritless for two 

Case: 19-10035 Date Filed: 08/06/2019 Page: 3 of 4 
4

reasons. First, this Court need not heed another Circuit’s holdings, let alone 

unpublished decisions from other circuits. Second, while he correctly stated the 

Second Circuit’s holding that the Monroe County Child Support Enforcement Unit 

was not covered under Eleventh Amendment immunity, that case involved a 

county agency, not a division within the state AG’s office. See Johnson, 21 Fed. 

App’x at 42. Thus, not only does that case bear no authoritative weight before this 

Court, it also involved distinguishable facts.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of Hodge’s § 1983 

complaint.

AFFIRMED.

Case: 19-10035 Date Filed: 08/06/2019 Page: 4 of 4