Court Opinion

ID: 9909594
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-13 19:00:40.286544+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:50:05.517098
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-50411         Document: 00516999550             Page: 1      Date Filed: 12/13/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________
                                                                                United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                         Fifth Circuit
                                       No. 23-50411
                                     Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                     ____________                              December 13, 2023
                                                                                  Lyle W. Cayce
   Xavier L. Crittendon,                                                               Clerk

                                                                     Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                             versus

   State of Texas - Health and Human Services
   Commission,

                                                Defendant—Appellee.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                           for the Western District of Texas
                                USDC No. 1:23-CV-327
                      ______________________________

   Before Smith, Higginson, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Appellant Xavier Crittendon filed this pro se suit against the Texas
   Health and Human Services Commission, contending that the Commission
   violated various rights secured by the Constitution and Texas law, TEX.
   GOV’T CODE ANN. § 2401.002 (restricting government limitations on
   religious organizations during declared states of disaster), when it found the
          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-50411      Document: 00516999550           Page: 2   Date Filed: 12/13/2023

                                     No. 23-50411

   early childhood program she operated in violation of multiple state
   regulations. She alleged that the Commission is a “terrorist” organization
   coordinating with the FBI, and sought monetary damages in the amount of
   “2% [of the] biennial budget for [the Commission] since 2011.”
          Because Crittendon proceeded in forma pauperis, the magistrate judge
   conducted a review to determine whether to recommend dismissal on the
   grounds that the action was frivolous, failed to state a claim on which relief
   could be granted, or sought monetary relief against a defendant immune from
   such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The magistrate judge recommended
   dismissal because the action was barred by the Eleventh Amendment. The
   district court adopted the report and recommendation, and dismissed the
   complaint and entered judgment for the Commission. We review for an
   abuse of discretion. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 34 (1992).
          “When a state agency is the named defendant, the Eleventh
   Amendment bars suits [in federal court] for both money damages and
   injunctive relief unless the state has waived its immunity,” Cozzo v.
   Tangipahoa Par. Council–President Gov’t, 279 F.3d 273, 280-81 (5th Cir.
   2002), or Congress has abrogated it, Moore v. La. Bd. of Elementary &
   Secondary Educ., 743 F.3d 959, 963 (5th Cir. 2014). Congress did not abrogate
   state sovereign immunity with 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Aguilar v. Texas Dep’t of
   Crim. Just., 160 F.3d 1052, 1054 (5th Cir. 1998), and the district court
   properly dismissed the constitutional claims. We conclude that the Texas
   law claim was also properly dismissed.           “To sustain a claim that the
   Government is liable for awards of monetary damages, the waiver of
   sovereign immunity must extend unambiguously to such monetary claims.”
   Lane v. Pena, 518 U.S. 187, 192 (1996). The Texas law under which
   Crittendon sued affords only injunctive and declaratory relief, as well as court
   costs and reasonable attorney’s fees.      TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN.
   § 2401.003 (setting out relief available under § 2401.002).

                                          2
Case: 23-50411   Document: 00516999550         Page: 3   Date Filed: 12/13/2023

                                No. 23-50411

         For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is
   AFFIRMED.

                                     3