Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that thi s opinion should not * be publishe d an d is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 20020
C E C IL C
. C O X , I n di vi du al l y an d as R epresentative of t h e E st ate of

L arry L o u is C o x ; R O B E R T E A R L C O X , P l ai n t i f fs - A pp el l ees v . S T A T E O F T E XA S ; T E XA 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 , D efen d a n ts - A p p ell a n ts

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or t h e Sou t h ern D i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 4: 08- c v- 02758
B ef ore S T E W A R T , D E N N IS, an d H AY N E S , C i rcui tJu dg es . P E R C U R IA M: * T h e State of

T exas an d the T exas D epa rt m en tof C ri m i n alJu st i ce ( “ T D C J”) app ealf

rom t h e distr ict court’ s den i alof t h ei r m ot i on s t o di sm i ss, w h ic h w e r e b a s e do n th e E l e v e n t h A m e n d m e n t a n ds o v e r e ig n im m u n ity
. W e R E V E R S E a n dR E M A N D
. United States Court of App eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D December

3, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 09- 20020

Thisapp eal onlyconcern s th e motion s to di smi ss file d b yTexa s an d TDCJ
. 1 2

I . F ACT S AND PROC EDURAL HI S TORY A pp el l e e s brou gh tt h i s s u i t , seeki n g both m on et ary an d i nj u n ct ive rel i ef unde r4 2 U
. S. C. § 198 3 andst at e l aw, a ga i ns tnum e r o us de fe nda nt s , i nc l udi ng T exas an d T D C J. A pp el l ees al l ege th a t T exas an d T D C J, am on g ot h ers, are l i ab l e f o rt he de at h o f

Lar r y Loui s Cox , af o r m er i n m ate of

T D CJ. Te xa s a nd TD CJ m o ve d t o di s m i s s Appe l l e e s ’c l ai m s a ga i ns tt he m o n t he basi s o f t he E le v e n th A m e n d m e n t a n ds o v e r e ig n im m u n ity
. T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t d e n ie dth e ir
m o t i o ns . Thi s i nt e r l o c ut o r y ap pe alf o l l o w e d. 1 I I . DI S CU S S I ON W e h a ve j u ri sd i cti on ov er th i s ap p ea lbe ca u se th e “d en i a lof [a] m oti on to di sm i ss . . . on the groun ds of el even t h am en dm en ti m m u n i t y i s a fi n aldeci si on a p p ea l a b l e un d er 28 U
. S
. C § 1 2 9 1
. ” L oya v. T ex. D ep’ tof Corrs . , 878 F. 2d 860, 861 ( 5t h C i r . 1989) (c i t i ng ENG v. Co ug h lin , 8 5 8 F .2d 8 8 9 , 8 9 4 (2d C ir. 1 9 8 8 )).

“W e r evi ew E l even t h Am e ndm e nti m m unit y de t e r m i nati o ns , likeo t he rq ue s t i o ns of su bj ect m a tter j u ri sd i cti on , de n ov o a s a q u estion of l a w . ” Uni t e d S t at e s v. T ex. Tec h. Uni v. , 1 7 1 F .3 d2 7 9 , 2 8 8 (5 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). U n der t h e E l even t h A m en dm en t , “ [ a] bsen tw aiver, nei t h er a Stat e nor a g e n c ie s a c t in g u n d e r it s c o n t r o l m a y ‘b e s u bje c tto s u itin fe d e r a l c o u r t .’” P
. R. A qu edu ct& S ew er A u t h
. v. Met calf & E d dy, I

n c. , 5 0 6 U
. S. 1 3 9 , 1 4 4 ( 1993) ( quot i ng W

e l c h v . Tex . De

p ’ tof Hig h way s & Pu b
. Tra n s p. , 4 8 3 U
. S. 468, 480 (1 9 8 7 )); Edel m an v . Jo r dan , 4 1 5 U .S . 6 5 1 , 6 6 3 ( 1 9 7 4 ). W e h a v e p r e v io u s lyh e ld th a t T D C J i s a sta te ag en cytha t enj oy s i m m u n i ty from su i t i n fed era lcou rt. Harri s v. A ngel i n a Cou n ty, T ex. , 3 1 F. 3d3 31 , 3 38 n. 7 ( 5t h Ci r . 1 99 4) ( “ U nde rt he cu rren t st a te o f th e la w , t h e T D C J i s d ee m ed an i n stru m en tali ty of t h e sta te o p era ti n g as i ts a l ter eg o i n ca rry i n g ou t a p u b l i c fun cti on of th e sta te , a n d isN o. 09- 20020

3 i m m u n e fr o m s u it u n d e rth e E le v e n th A m e n d m e n t.” ); Agui lar v . Te x . D e p’tof C ri m i n al Ju st i ce , 1 6 0 F .3 d1 0 5 2 , 1 0 5 4 (5 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ). A ppel l ee s, c i t i ng Ex Par t eYou ng , 2 09 U
. S. 1 23 ( 19 08 ) , a s s e r tt hatt he El e ve nt h Am e ndm e nt do e s no t ap pl y t o t he i r c l ai m s be c aus e t hey are se e ki ng p rosp ective inju n ctive reli ef ag a i n st T ex a s an dT D C J
. A p p ell ee s’attem p t t o a vo i dth e E l ev en th A m en d m en t on th i s b a sis i s m i stak en for tw o rea son s. F i rst, El e ve nt h Am e ndm e nti m m uni t y ap pl i e s t o a l ls ui t s b r o ugh ta ga i ns t“ St at e s a nd th eir a ge n ci es . . . reg a rd l ess of th e reli ef sou gh t. ” P. R
. Aque duc t& Se w e rAut h. , 506 U
. S. at146 (c i t i ng Co ry v. W h ite , 4 5 7 U .S . 8 5 , 9 0 -9 1 (1 9 8 2 )). S e c o n d , Ex Pa r t eYoung on l y a p p l i es to su i ts f or p rosp ective reli ef ag a i n st sta te offi cia ls ; it “h a s n o a p p l i ca ti on i n su i ts ag a i n st . . . S tates a n dthe i r ag en ci es.” I d. ; C oxv. C i ty of D allas, T

ex ., 2 5 6 F .3d 2 8 1 , 3 0 7 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 1 ) (“Ex p ar t eYou nghel d t hat th e E le v e n th A m e n d m e n t d o e s n o t b a ra s u i ta g a in s t a s ta te o ffic ia l w h o is a lle g e dto b e a c tin gin v io la tio n o f fe d e r a l la w .”). A ccor di n gl y, A pp el l ees’st ate l aw an d § 198 3 cla i m s are barred u n l ess T e x a s o rT D C J h a s w a iv e dits im m u n ity
. S eeHa rr is , 3 1 F
. 3 dat 33 8 n . 7 ( “S tate l a w cl a i m s ag a i n st t h e S tate d efen d a n ts . . . a r e also b a rred bythe E l ev en th A m endm ent . ” (c i t i ng Penn h u rst St at eSc h. & Ho s p. v . Hal de r m an , 465 U
. S. 89, 1 0 2 -1 0 3 , 1 2 4 -2 6 (19 8 4 ))) ; Q ue r n v . Jo r dan , 440 U
. S. 332, 341 ( 1979) ( st at i ng t hat § 1 9 8 3 d o e s n o t“ o v e r r id e th e tra d iti o n a l so v e re ign im m u n ityof th e S ta te s”). N e ith e rT e x a s n o rT D C J h a s w a iv e dits im m u n ity ; th e r e fo r e , A p p e lle e s ’cla im s a g a in s t t h e m a r e b a r r e db yth e E le v e n th A m e n d m e n t. I I I . C ONC L US I ON Fort he f

o r e go i ng r e as o ns , weREV ERS E th ed i s t r i c tc o u r t ’ s o r de r s de nyi ng th e S tate of T ex a s’ s an dT ex a s D ep a rtm en t of C ri m i n a lJu sti ce’ s m o tio n s to di s m i s s , a nd we RE M AN D t o t he d i st ri ctc o ur tt o e nt e ra n o r de rg r ant i ng t he
m o tio n s a n dd is m is s in gth e s e d e fe n d a n ts .