Opinion ID: 28222
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Immunity from the State Law Claims

Text: The Officers assert two separate grounds of immunity from the Sorrells Family’s state law 6 claims.
“Texas’ law of qualified or official immunity is substantially the same as federal immunity law.” Cantu v. Rocha, 77 F.3d 795, 809 (5th Cir. 1996) (citing City of Lancaster v. Chambers, 883 S.W.2d 650, 656 (Tex. 1994)). “There is, however, one important difference. Summary judgment is not appropriate, as it is in the federal system, simply on a showing that the right alleged to have been violated was not clearly established.” Id. at 808-09 (citing City of Lancaster, 833 S.W.2d at 657). Texas’s test for official immunity focuses solely on the objective legal reasonableness of the officer’s conduct. Id. (citing City of Lancaster, 833 S.W.2d at 656-57). We agree with the district court that the same fact issues that preclude summary judgment on the § 1983 claim, preclude granting official immunity on the state law claims. B. Immunity Under Section 101.106 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code The Officers also assert that they are entitled to immunity based on section 101.106 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. That section provides that “[a] judgment in an action or a settlement of a claim under this chapter bars any action involving the same subject matter by the claimant against the employee of the governmental unit whose act or omission gave rise to the claim.” TEX. CIV. PRACTICE MANAGEMENT. & REM. CODE ANN. § 101.106 (Vernon 1997). The Texas Supreme Court has held that the immunity conveyed to a governmental unit’s employees by section 101.106 is triggered by any judgment in a Texas Tort Claim suit against a governmental unit. Newman v. Oberstellar, 960 S.W.2d 621, 622-23 (Tex. 1997) (emphasis added). The cause of action against the employee need not arise under the Texas Tort Claims Act (“TTCA”). White v. Annis, 864 S.W.2d 127, 131 (Tex. App. 1993) (“If the Legislature had intended for a judgment in a Tort 7 Claims Act case to bar only actions against the employee based on the same cause of action, it would have written the statute to so provide.”). The “same subject matter” language in section 101.106 means “arising out of the same actions, transactions, or occurrences.” Dallas County Mental Health & Mental Retardation v. Bossley, 968 S.W.2d 339, 344 (Tex. 1998). The Sorrells Family’s state law claims against Dallas were not claims “under this chapter,” i.e., the TTCA, because Dallas was only sued under § 1983. Bell v. Love, 923 S.W.2d 229, 231 (Tex. App. 1996) (recognizing that section 101.106 would o nly apply if the claims against the governmental unit were under the TTCA); see also Thomas v. Oldham, 895 S.W.2d 352, 355, 357 (Tex. 1995) (referring to “this chapter” as the TTCA). Because the judgment in favor of Dallas was based on § 1983, Texas’s tort immunity does not apply.