IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-31138

Summary Calendar

TONY CHANEY,

Plaintiff–Appellant

v.

LOUISIANA WORK FORCE COMMISSION; LOUISIANA ATTORNEY 

GENERAL OFFICE; JAMES CALDWELL, DIRECTOR, ALSO KNOWN AS 

BUDDY; WAYNE ROGILLIO, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, LOUISIANA 

STATE BOARD OF PRIVATE SECURITY EXAMINERS, IN HIS 

INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY, 

Defendants–Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Louisiana

USDC No. 3:13-CV-241

Before KING, DAVIS, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Pro se Appellant Tony Chaney (hereinafter “Chaney”) appeals the 

district court’s dismissal of his claims alleging violations of his civil rights by 

Louisiana Work Force Commission, Louisiana Attorney General’s Office, 

Attorney General James “Buddy” Caldwell, and Wayne Rogillio (hereinafter 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 14, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 13-31138 Document: 00512629329 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/14/2014
No. 13-31138

“Defendants”). The district court found that Defendants were immune from 

suit and that Chaney failed to effectuate proper service of process on 

Defendants. Chaney argues that the district court erred in dismissing his 

action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We affirm the district court.

Chaney alleges the Louisiana Workforce Commission has conspired with 

the Louisiana Attorney General to have him categorized as a potential terrorist 

for the purpose of monitoring his activities. Chaney further alleges that 

Louisiana Attorney General and other law enforcement agencies have utilized 

multiple surveillance techniques in violation of his civil rights. Chaney claims 

that various members of law enforcement have physically threatened, 

intimidated, ran over, harassed, and conducted unlawful searches of Chaney 

and his private investigator, William Humble. He brings claims under 42 

U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, 1986, 1988, 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242, and state tort law and 

seeks an award in the amount of ten million dollars. 

The district court was correct in its ruling that the Eleventh Amendment 

bars Chaney’s claims for monetary damages against Defendants in their 

official capacities. The Supreme Court has distinguished between personaland official-capacity suits. In Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21, 25 (1991), the Court 

made clear that a suit against a state official in his official capacity for 

monetary damages is treated as a suit against the state and is therefore barred 

by the Eleventh Amendment.

Chaney argues that under Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 

U.S. 658 (1978), government officials sued in their official capacities are 

“persons” for purposes of § 1983. However, Monell limits immunity to local 

and municipal entities only to the extent that “the action that is alleged to be 

unconstitutional implements or executes a policy statement, ordinance, 

regulation, or decision officially adopted or promulgated by those whose acts 

may fairly represent official policy.” Id. at 690. Chaney does not allege any 

2

 Case: 13-31138 Document: 00512629329 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/14/2014
No. 13-31138

such policy was adopted or promulgated by Defendants. It is settled law that 

a suit against state officials in their official capacities does not qualify as a suit 

against “persons” under § 1983, and Chaney’s claims must fail. See Will v. 

Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989). 

Because Chaney’s claims are barred by the Eleventh Amendment, we 

need not reach the issue of service.1 AFFIRMED. 

1 Although Chaney has captioned his case as a suit against the departments in their 

official capacities and Wayne Rogillio in his individual and official capacity, he has failed to 

brief the issue against Rogillio in his individual capacity and therefore has waived the issue. 

See United States v. Scoggins, 599 F.3d 433, 446 (5th Cir. 2010).

3

 

 Case: 13-31138 Document: 00512629329 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/14/2014