IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

SONYA L. CHAPMAN, )

Plaintiff, )

vs. ) No. 3:05-CV-1997-N (BH)

) ECF

STATE OF TEXAS, ) Referred to U.S. Magistrate Judge

Defendant. )

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and an Order of the Court in implementation thereof, subject cause has previously been referred to the United States Magistrate Judge.

The findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge are as follows:

I. BACKGROUND

On October 7, 2005, plaintiff filed the instant action for monetary damages against the State

of Texas for alleged conspiracy and false claims related to visiting with her child. No process has

been issued in this case. 

II. PRELIMINARY SCREENING

The Court has permitted plaintiff to proceed in forma pauperis. Her complaint is thus subject

to sua sponte dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). That statute provides for sua sponte dismissal

if the Court finds the complaint “frivolous” or “malicious,” if it “fails to state a claim upon which

relief may be granted,” or if it “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such

relief.”

As demonstrated below, plaintiff seeks monetary relief from a defendant which is immune

to such relief.

 

 Case 3:05-cv-01997-N Document 7 Filed 03/22/06 Page 1 of 3 PageID 19
2

III. IMMUNITY

Plaintiff seeks monetary damages as relief against the State. “The Eleventh Amendment[,

however,] secures the states’ immunity from private suits for monetary damages filed in federal

court.” Neinast v. Texas, 217 F.3d 275, 280 (5th Cir. 2000). Although Congress has the power to

abrogate that immunity through the Fourteenth Amendment, Kimel v. Florida Bd. of Regents, 528

U.S. 62, 72-76 (2000), and the State may waive its immunity by consenting to suit, AT&T

Communications v. BellSouth Telecommunications Inc., 238 F.3d 636, 643 (5th Cir. 2001), the State

has not waived its immunity by consenting to suit nor has Congress abrogated the Eleventh

Amendment immunity, see Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989). Plaintiff

cannot obtain monetary damages from the State.

IV. RECOMMENDATION

For the foregoing reasons, it is recommended that the District Court summarily DISMISS

plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

SIGNED this 22nd day of March, 2006.

 ___________________________________

 IRMA CARRILLO RAMIREZ

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

 Case 3:05-cv-01997-N Document 7 Filed 03/22/06 Page 2 of 3 PageID 20
3

INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE AND

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL/OBJECT

The United States District Clerk shall serve a copy of these findings, conclusions, and recommendation on plaintiff by mailing a copy to him. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), any party who

desires to object to these findings, conclusions and recommendation must file and serve written

objections within ten days after being served with a copy. A party filing objections must specifically

identify those findings, conclusions, or recommendation to which objections are being made. The

District Court need not consider frivolous, conclusory, or general objections. Failure to file written

objections to the proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation within ten days after being

served with a copy shall bar the aggrieved party from appealing the factual findings and legal

conclusions of the Magistrate Judge that are accepted by the District Court, except upon grounds

of plain error. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).

 ___________________________________

 IRMA CARRILLO RAMIREZ

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

 Case 3:05-cv-01997-N Document 7 Filed 03/22/06 Page 3 of 3 PageID 21