## IN THE SUPREME COURT O F TEX AS

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 N O
. 11-0728

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 

### T E X A S 

### D E P A R T M E N T O F 

### C R IM IN A L 

### J U S T IC E


### - C O M M U N IT Y 

### J U S T IC E 

### A S S IS T A N C E 

### D IV IS IO N 

### , P E T IT IO N E R 

### ,

v . 

### L U Z E L M A 

### C A M P O S 

### , B E T T Y 

### J O 

### G O N Z A L E Z 

### , A N D 

### M IS T Y 

### V A L E R O 

### , R E S P O N D E N T S

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

O N P E T I T I O N F O R R E V I E W F R O M T H E C O U R T O F A P P E A L S F O R T H E T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X A S

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

P ER CURIAM

The Texas Depa

rtment of Criminal J ustice Communi ty J ustice Assistance Division (TDCJ) bring s this interlocutory appea l from the denial of its plea to the jurisdiction as to claims for damag es rela ted to actions of two Nuec es County Substance Abuse Treatment Fa cility (SATF) office rs. The claims ag ainst TDCJ based on the use of tang ible proper ty involved intent to acc omplish intentional torts, a nd its plea to the jurisdiction as to those claims should have bee n g rante d. I ts ple a as to the

rema ining c laims also should have bee n g rante d beca use there was no a lleg ation that those claims resulted from the use of tang ible proper ty

. We reve rse and rende r judgme nt dismissing the claims
ag ainst TDCJ for wa

nt of jurisdiction.
L uze l m a Campos, Be tty J o Gonzalez, and Misty Valer o (collec tively , the Plaintiffs) wer e ref err ed to the SATF for detention. The SATF is opera ted by the local Communi ty Supervision andCorrec tions Depa rtment (CSCD). See T E X
. G O V ’ T C O D E § § 7 6.004(b), 76.006(a) –(b). TDCJ furnishes administrative and technica l assistance to the SATF, i n cl u d i n g office r training and

cer tification. See id. §§ 509.003–.005, 509.008–.009.
I n Dec ember 2000, the Plaintiffs su ed Nuec es County , TDCJ , and two SATF office rs, Anthony Allen and Cordell Hay es. The P laintiffs alleg ed that Allen a n d Ha y es sex ually hara ssed and assaulted them while t hey wer e at the S ATF

. As rele vant t o t h i s appea l, they asser ted claims
ag ainst TDCJ for violation of 42 U.S

. C. § 1983; premises defe ct; and neg lige nt hiring , training , supervision, and implementation of policy . The Plaintiffs later added CSCD as a de fenda nt. TDCJ and CSC D filed a joint plea to the j u ri sdiction based on g overnme ntal immunit y , which the trial court g rante d in November 2006. The court of appea ls aff irmed the dismiss al of the 1 § 1983 claims but reve rsed a s to the neg lige nce c laims. Campos v

. Tex. Dep’ t of Criminal Justice ( Campos II) , No. 13–08–00269–CV, 2009 WL 3385248, at *8 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi Oct. 22, 2009, no pet.) (mem. op.). The appea ls c ourt held that (1) the Plaintiffs’ pleading s wer e sufficie nt
to alleg e a premises defe ct claim under the Texas Tort Claims Act (TTCA), see T E X
. C I V
. P R A C
. &
R E M
. C O D E § 101.021(2); and (2) the Plaintiffs should b e p er m i t t ed to reple ad under their other theories of

neg lige nce a fter be ing a llowed time for a dditional discovery

. Id. at *3–*5, *8. After rema

nd, t h e P l aint iffs filed their fourth amende d orig inal petition. I n it they alleg ed that in order to g ain exclusive, private, unmonitored, and unfetter ed acc ess to them and to wrong fully confine them during the assaults, Allen and Hay es used proper ty such as a laundry room, a laundry

I n 2 0 0 3 , t h e t r i a l c o u r t g r a n t e d N u e c e s C o u n t y ’ s p l e a t o t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n . T h e c o u r t o f a p p e a l s r e v e r s e d a n d 1
r e m a n d e d

. C a m p o s v
. N u e c e s C n t y
. , 1 6 2 S

. W

. 3 d 7 7 8 , 7 8 2 ( T e x . A p p . — C o r p u s C h r i s t i 2 0 0 5 , p e t

. d e n i e d )

. T h e C o u n t y w a s u l t i m a t e l y d i s m i s s e d f r o m t h e s u i t

. 2car

t, and a storag e room. TDCJ and CSC D ag ain filed a joint plea to the jurisdiction. This time the trial court de nied the plea

. TDCJ and CSC D appea led and the court of appea ls aff irmed in part, reversed in part, and rende red in part. ___ S.W .3d at ___. The court dismiss ed all of the Plaintiffs’ claims ag ainst CSC D and the premises liability claims ag ainst TDCJ beca use immunit y had not be en waived. Id. But it held that immunit y was waived for the claims ag ainst TDCJ for neg lige nt hiring, t ra i n i ng , and supervisi o n of employ ees and neg lige nt implementation of policy beca use the TTCA waives the
State’s immunit y for “per sonal injury

. . . so cause d by a condition or use of tang ible persona l or rea l
proper ty .” Id. at ___; see T E X
. C I V
. P R A C
. & R E M
. C O D E § 101.0 2 1 (2). I t further held that the “intentional-torts exception,” which excludes waiver for claims “ar ising out of assault, battery , false imprisonment, or any

other intentional tort” did not bar the Plaintiffs’ claims “mer ely beca use t he alleg edly neg lige nt conduct was acc ompanied by intentional torts.” ___ S.W .3d at ___; see T E X
. C I V
. P R A C
. & R E M
. C O D E § 101.057(2).
I n this Court T DC J ar g ues t hat (1) the relationship betwee n Plaintiffs’ theories of liability and TDCJ is “t o o at tenuated to waive immunit y ” under the TTCA, (2) the Plaintiffs’ alleg ations
ag ainst it asser

t a non-use or misuse of information for which the TTCA does not waive immunit y , and (3) even assuming immunit y is waived under the TTCA based o n a m i s u s e of proper ty , the intentional-torts exception under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 101.057(2) bars the suit. W e ag ree that TDCJ ’s immunity was not wa ived. First we note t hat appellate courts ge nera lly have jurisdiction only over appea ls from final judgme nts. Bally Total Fitness Corp. v. Jack son , 53 S.W .3d 352, 352 (Tex. 2001). But a party may
3appea l from cer tain interlocutory order s, including the denial of a plea to the jurisdiction by a
g overnme ntal unit. T E X
. C I V
. P R A C
. & R E M
. C O D E § 51.014(a) (8). Whil e the court of appea ls’ judgme nt is usually conclusive on interlocutory appea l, we may consider an i n t erloc utory appea l when the court of appea ls holds differ ently from a prior decision of this Court. T E X
. G O V ’ T C O D E §§ 22.001(a) (2), (e) ; 22.225(c)

. We have jurisdiction beca use the holding of the court o f appeals conflicts with our decision in Texas Departme nt o f P u b lic Safety v. Petta , 44 S.W .3d 575 (Tex. 2001). The Plaintiffs urg e that TDCJ ’s immunit y has been waived by the TTCA beca use Allen and Hay es used tang ible proper t y i n p erpetrating the assaults. See T E X
. C I V
. P R A C
. & R E M
. C O D E § 101.021(2) (wa iving immunit y when injuries are cause d by a condition or use of tang ible proper ty ). They ref ere nce, for example, Allen and Hay es’s use of a laundry car t that they rolled in front of the door t o t h e l aundry room to block the doorwa y when they perf

ormed the assaults. The court of
appea ls held that immunit y from the neg lige nce claims was waived beca use of this use or condition of proper ty

. We disag ree with that conclusion. The Plai n t iffs do not asser t that Allen and Hay es used the proper

ty for any purpose or with any intent other than to eff ect their intentional assaults of the Plaintiffs. Additionally , the Plaintiffs’ claims based on neg lige nt conduct do not involve the use of tang ible proper

ty

. As we explain below, the Plaintiffs’ alleg ations do not prese nt a claim within the TTCA’s wa iver of immunity for g overnme ntal entities.
I n Petta we addre ssed neg lige nce claims ag ainst a g overnme ntal entity wher e the underly ing conduct was intentional in nature

. Melinda Petta sued the Texas Depa rtment of Public Safety afte r

a trooper alleg edly assaulted her. Petta , 44 S.W .3d at 576. We held that immunit y was not waived

4for claims based on conduct such as the trooper’ s hitting Petta’s car window and shooting at her tires

beca use those actions wer e intentional and fell within the exclusion for claims arising out of assault, battery , and false imprisonment. Id. at 580. We also held that immunit y was not waived for claims that the Depa

rtment neg lige ntly failed to furnish proper training and instruction to the trooper beca use information, even if written down, is not tang ible proper ty but is only an abstrac t conce pt. Id. at 580-81. The court of appea ls deter mined that this case is distinguishable from Petta beca use proper

ty such as a laundry room and a djace nt stora g e room, a laundry car t, a nd key s wer e used in this ca se, and such proper

ty is tang ible and not abstrac t. ___ S.W .3d at ___. But even assuming the Plaintiffs’ injuries wer e cause d by a use of tang ible proper ty , the P l ai n t i ff

s’ only alleg ations reg arding this
p ro p er t y were that it was used in the course of Allen and Hay es g aining “exclusive, private, unmonitored, and unfetter ed acc ess to the Plaintiffs, to thwart es ca p e from the assaults, and to
wrong full y co n fi n e P l aintiffs during the assaults.” The proper ty was only used with intent to

acc omplish the assaults of which the Plaintiffs complain. Thus, the proper ty ’s use is encompa ssed within the exclusion of claims arising from intentional torts. T E X
. C I V
. P R A C
. & R E M
. C O D E 2 § 101.057(2); see Pe tta , 44 S.W .3d at 580.

T D C J a s s e r t s t h a t c o n t r a r y t o P l a i n t i f f s ’ a l l e g a t i o n s i n t h e i r p l e a d i n g s , A l l e n a n d H a y e s a r e n o t S t a t e e m p l o y e e s 2 b u t a r e e m p l o y e e s o f C S C D

. S e e D e l a n e y v
. U n i v
. o

f H o u s t o n , 8 3 5 S

. W

. 2 d 5 6 , 5 9 ( T e x . 1 9 9 2 ) ( c o n c l u d i n g t h a t t h e i n t e n t i o n a l t o r t e x c e p t i o n o n l y a p p l i e s i f a g o v e r n m e n t a l e m p l o y e e ’ s c o n d u c t i s t h e s u b j e c t o f t h e c o m p l a i n t )

. B u t w h e n r e v i e w i n g a p l e a t o t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n , w e t a k e a s t r u e a l l e v i d e n c e f a v o r a b l e t o t h e n o n - m o v a n t , i n d u l g i n g e v e r y r e a s o n a b l e i n f e r e n c e a n d r e s o l v i n g a n y d o u b t s i n i t s f a v o r . S e e C i t

y o f E l P a s o v
. H e i n r i c h , 2 8 4 S

. W

. 3 d 3 6 6 , 3 7 8 ( T e x . 2 0 0 9 )

. E v e n i f A l l e n a n d H a y e s a r e n o t T D C J e m p l o y e e s a n d t h e i n t e n t i o n a l t o r t e x c e p t i o n i s i n a p p l i c a b l e , o u r u l t i m a t e c o n c l u s i o n w o u l d n o t c h a n g e b e c a u s e C a m p o s m u s t s h o w a w a i v e r o f i m m u n i t y f o r h e r s e p a r a t e n e g l i g e n c e c l a i m a g a i n s t T D C J

. S e e D e l a n e

y , 8 3 5 S

. W

. 2 d a t 6 0

.
5Howeve r, even if a claim is ba sed on an intentional tor t, a g overnme ntal entity may still be liable for ne g lige nce if

that neg lige nce is distinct fr om the intentional tor t. Y oung v. Dimmitt , 787
S.W .2d 50, 51 (Tex. 1 9 9 0) (“Although a gover nmental uni t is immune from claims arising out of intentional torts, petitioners’ neg lige nt employ ment and entrustment claims arise out of the alleg ed
neg lige nce of t h e ci t y employ ees supervising the office r, not out of the office r’s intentional tort.” (citation omitted)). But a caus e o f ac tion for neg lige nt supervision or training must satisfy the TTCA’s use of tang ible proper ty require ment. Petta , 44 S.W .3d at 581. The Plaintiffs’ claims do
not. The Plaintiffs alleg e, without elabor ation, that TDCJ failed to discipline prior inappropria te conduct by other employ ees, failed to proper ly hire, train, and supervise Allen and Hay es, and failed
to scre en, educate, train, supervise, investiga te, or otherwise direc t employ ees with reg ard to sexual hara ssment and assault. The Plaintiffs do not alleg e that a “use” of tang ible proper ty was involved
in any of these failure s. See id. at 580-81 (conc luding that claims rela ted to neg lige nt failure to train, instruct, and discipline involved the misuse or non-use of info rm at i on which is not tang ible
proper ty ). Thus, the TTCA doe s not waive TDCJ’s imm unity from the c laims. The Plaintiffs also alleg e that TDCJ is liable beca use it made tang ible proper ty available to Allen and Hay es. But providing someone with proper ty that is not inhere ntly unsafe is not a “use” under the TTCA. The Plaintiffs do not claim that the proper ty Allen and Hay es used was inhere ntly unsafe , so TDCJ ’s immunit y is not waived for making the proper ty available to them. San Antonio
State Ho s p. v. Cowan , 128 S.W .3d 244, 246 (Tex. 2004) (“I f all ‘use’ meant wer e ‘to make available ,’ the statutory

restric tion would have ver y littl e for ce.” ).

6Finally , the Plaintiffs claim t h at TDCJ permitted surveillance came ras to be improperly

located. “Use ” under the TTCA means “to put or bring into action or service ; to employ for or apply
to a g iven purpose.” Id. Even assuming the truth of the alleg ations that TDCJ deter mined improper locations for placement of the ca mera s, its decisions do not equate to “using ” the c amer as, t hat i s, putting or bring ing them into service or employ ing or apply ing them to a g iven purpose. Using the

came ras for surveillance is differ ent from deciding wher e to place them so they might later be used. Although the alleg ations in the Plaintiffs’ pleading s do not demonstrate the court’s jurisdiction, neither do they aff irmatively neg ate it. The situation is a matter of pleading sufficie ncy , and in such situations, plaintiffs should g ener ally be g iven an opportunity to amend the pleading s. T ex
. De p’t of Parks & W

ildlif e v. Miranda , 133 S.W .3d 217, 226-27 (Tex. 2004). Howeve r, if a
g overnme ntal entity has asser ted in the trial court that it is immune a nd a plaintiff fails to alleg e or show fac ts demonstrating a waiver of immunit y afte r having a rea sonable opportunity to conduct discovery direc ted t o the i ssue and amend the pleading s, then the case should be dis missed. Rusk
State Hosp. v. Black , ___ S.W .3d ___, ___ (Tex. 2012); Harris Cnty. v. Syke s , 136 S.W .3d 635, 639 (Tex. 2004). I n this case the Plaintiffs amende d their petition three times over a period of nine y ear s afte r TDCJ filed its first plea to the jurisdiction. Prior to the Plaintiffs’ last amendment the court of
appea ls ha d noted “it is unc lear from the pleading s how the surveillance came ras and rooms in the
SATF fac ility may have been used, as opposed to not used, and there by cause d an injury .” Campos
II , 2009 WL 3385248, at *5. The plaintiffs have had a rea sonable opportunity to eng ag e in discovery

on the immunit y question and amend their pleading s, but never th el es s have not alleg ed or shown

7fac ts demonstrating their injuries wer e cause d by TDCJ ’s use of tang ible proper ty

. A c c o r d in g ly , they have f ailed to demonstrate a wa iver of T DCJ ’s immunity

. We gr ant TDCJ ’s petition for re view. Without hearing oral a rg ument, see T E X
. R. A P P
. P. 59.1, we reve rse the judgme nt of the court of appea ls and dismiss the Plaintiffs’ claims ag ains t TDCJ

.

OP INION DELIVERED: October 26, 2012

8