Opinion ID: 404985
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: joinder of the board of corrections and its individual members

Text: 33 In the original suits filed by individual inmates, only W. J. Estelle, the Director of TDC, was named as defendant. In its complaint in intervention, however, the United States also named as defendants the Texas Board of Corrections and its individual members. Texas law charges the Board of Corrections with the exclusive management and control of TDC. 73 34 This action was initiated under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which provides that (e) very person who, under color of law, subjects a citizen to deprivation of his federal rights shall be liable to that citizen. 74 The states' eleventh amendment sovereign immunity bars an action in federal court against a state or a state agency unless the state has consented to suit. 75 Congress, in enacting § 1983, did not intend to override the traditional sovereign immunity of the states. 76 Thus neither states nor state agencies are persons within the meaning of § 1983. 77 35 The Board of Corrections is merely an agency of the state. It is, therefore, neither a person nor, consequently, a proper party defendant. As the United States now concedes, the district court's judgment must be reversed insofar as it casts the Board as a defendant, and the Board, as an entity, must be dismissed from this case. 78 36 The individual members of the Board, however, are of course persons. Although the Texas statute vests management of the prison system in the Board, the Board members are responsible as individuals, in the same manner as the Director of TDC, for any violation of constitutional rights caused by their management. 79 37 TDC contends that the Board members are superfluous defendants because the Director of TDC is also a defendant and can respond to any court orders. The mere fact that one defendant can pay a judgment or effectuate a court order has never been deemed reason to dismiss other persons who are legally responsible to the plaintiff, and TDC cites no authority for the proposition that one amenable defendant suffices. Accordingly, the joinder of the individual members of the Board was proper.