Court Opinion

ID: 9895815
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-08 19:00:31.648398+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:11:44.162265
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-40078         Document: 00516960710             Page: 1      Date Filed: 11/08/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit                                         United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                          Fifth Circuit

                                      ____________                                      FILED
                                                                                 November 8, 2023
                                       No. 23-40078                                   Lyle W. Cayce
                                      ____________                                         Clerk

   Brandon Finchum,

                                                                       Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Nacogdoches County,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                           for the Eastern District of Texas
                                USDC No. 9:21-CV-285
                      ______________________________

   Before Wiener, Willett, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          In this interlocutory appeal, we are asked to decide whether the Texas
   Wiretap Act waives governmental immunity. Because the language of the
   statute contains no explicit waiver, and because ambiguities should be
   resolved in favor of immunity, we hold that it does not.
          The facts of this case are undisputed and recited only briefly for
   context purposes. While incarcerated in the Nacogdoches County Jail,

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-40078      Document: 00516960710            Page: 2    Date Filed: 11/08/2023

                                      No. 23-40078

   Plaintiff–Appellee Brandon Finchum retained attorneys to investigate and
   litigate civil rights claims associated with inmate treatment and jail
   conditions. Finchum called his lawyers from the jail on multiple occasions to
   discuss his claims. In furtherance of this civil litigation, one of Finchum’s
   attorneys submitted requests to Defendant–Appellant Nacogdoches County
   for recordings of those and other phone calls under the Texas Public
   Information Act. While responding to those open records requests, a non-
   lawyer employee of the County Attorney’s office inadvertently listened to a
   call between Finchum and his attorney. Finchum subsequently filed suit
   under the Texas Wiretap Act (“TWA”). 1
          The County moved for summary judgment, asserting that it was
   entitled to governmental immunity from Finchum’s TWA claim. The
   magistrate judge disagreed, finding that the TWA waived governmental
   immunity. Over the County’s objections, the district court adopted the
   magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. This interlocutory appeal
   followed. We review the denial of summary judgment on the basis of
   immunity de novo. Morgan v. Plano Indep. Sch. Dist., 724 F.3d 579, 582 (5th
   Cir. 2013) (“[B]ecause governmental immunity from suit defeats a trial
   court’s jurisdiction, whether a trial court has jurisdiction is a question of law
   subject to de novo review.”).
          “Governmental immunity generally protects municipalities and other
   state subdivisions from suit unless the immunity has been waived by the
   constitution or state law.” Univ. of Tex. M.D. Anderson Cancer Ctr. v.

          _____________________
          1
             Finchum’s original complaint also brought claims for misuse of official
   information, in violation of TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 39.06, and for violation of the
   Federal Wiretap Act. These claims are not relevant to the instant appeal.

                                           2
Case: 23-40078        Document: 00516960710             Page: 3      Date Filed: 11/08/2023

                                         No. 23-40078

   McKenzie, 578 S.W.3d 506, 512 (Tex. 2019) (citation omitted). 2 A statute
   may only waive immunity by “clear and unambiguous language.” Tex.
   Gov’t Code § 311.034. The party suing the government has the burden of
   affirmatively showing that the legislature intended to waive immunity.
   McKenzie, 578 S.W.3d at 512.
           The TWA provides that “[a] party to a communication may sue a
   person who . . . intercepts . . . the communication . . . [or] uses or divulges
   information . . . obtained by interception.” Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem.
   Code § 123.002. The parties dispute whether the word “person,”
   undefined in the statute, includes governmental entities. We turn to the
   Texas Code Construction Act to decipher legislative intent. See Tex.
   Gov’t Code § 311, et seq. The Construction Act directs that, “unless the
   statute or context in which the word . . . is used requires a different
   definition,” “person” includes corporation, organization, government or
   governmental subdivision or agency. Id. § 311.005(2).
           This seems like strong evidence that the legislature intended for the
   TWA to allow suits against governmental entities, but another section of the
   Construction Act expressly disclaims such interpretation. Section 311.034
   states that “the use of ‘person,’ as defined by Section 311.005 to include
   governmental entities, does not indicate legislative intent to waive sovereign
   immunity unless the context of the statute indicates no other reasonable
   construction.” The TWA can be reasonably construed to maintain
   immunity, given its continued applicability to private persons and entities.
   See Rolling Plains Groundwater Conservation Dist. v. City of Aspermont, 353
   S.W.3d 756, 759 (Tex. 2011) (“The [statute] applies to private individuals

           _____________________
           2
            We apply state law to issues of immunity. Brown v. Miller, 519 F.3d 231, 239 (5th
   Cir. 2008).

                                               3
Case: 23-40078         Document: 00516960710               Page: 4      Date Filed: 11/08/2023

                                          No. 23-40078

   and governmental entities alike, so the Code is not without meaning when
   construed against an asserted waiver of immunity.”); Wichita Falls State
   Hosp. v. Taylor, 106 S.W.3d 692, 700 (Tex. 2003) (“[The code] creates a
   meaningful cause of action against private mental health care facilities, a
   claim that remains viable even if suit against the government is barred.”);
   City of Oak Ridge N. v. Mendes, 339 S.W.3d 222, 234 (Tex. App. 2011) (“The
   Texas Wiretap Statute applies to persons acting in their private capacities, so
   the statute is not without meaning if it does not apply to governmental
   entities.”). The inclusion of the word “person” in the TWA does not evince
   legislative intent to waive governmental immunity, notwithstanding the
   definition in § 311.005 of the Construction Act. 3
           The cases Finchum cites in support of the contrary are unpersuasive.
   First, although the district court denied the state’s immunity defense at the
   motion to dismiss stage in Garza v. Bexar Metropolitan Water District, 639 F.
   Supp. 2d 770, 774 (W.D. Tex. 2009), at summary judgment a magistrate
   judge reversed course, noting that the district court’s earlier order failed to
   “address the impact of § 311.034” on the analysis, No. 08-cv-839-OLG,
   2009 WL 10669528, at *16-17 (W.D. Tex. Dec. 9, 2009). 4 Similarly, the
   district court in Austin Lawyers Guild v. Securus Technologies, Inc. did not
   consider § 311.034 in holding that the TWA waived governmental immunity.

           _____________________
           3
             Furthermore, even without considering § 311.034, the Texas Supreme Court has
   held that “the mere incorporation of a definition from one statute into another that includes
   both private and governmental entities does not clearly express legislative intent to waive
   the governmental entities’ immunity from suit.” City of Midlothian v. Black, 271 S.W. 3d
   791, 797 (Tex. App. 2008) (citing Taylor, 106 S.W.3d at 699-700). At most, the TWA
   incorporation of the definition in § 311.005 creates an ambiguity as to immunity. See Taylor,
   106 S.W.3d at 701. And, ambiguities are to be construed against waiver. Id.
           4
             That report and recommendation was never adopted by the district court because
   the parties agreed to a voluntary dismissal. See Stip., Garza v. Bexar Metro. Water Dist., No.
   08-cv-839-OLG (W.D. Tex. Mar. 1, 2010), ECF No. 79.

                                                 4
Case: 23-40078      Document: 00516960710          Page: 5    Date Filed: 11/08/2023

                                    No. 23-40078

   No. 14-cv-366-LY, 2015 WL 10818584, at *10 n.2 (W.D. Tex. Feb. 4, 2015).
   The district court in the instant case also failed to address § 311.034. See
   Finchum v. Nacogdoches County, No. 21-cv-285-MJT-CLS, 2022 WL
   18636946, at *5 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 29, 2022), report and recommendation adopted
   by 2023 WL 373879 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 24, 2023). We are unaware of any court
   which has cited all of the relevant statutory authority, including § 311.034, in
   holding that the TWA waives immunity.
          Finchum has not met his burden in showing that the TWA
   unambiguously waives governmental immunity. See Mendes, 339 S.W.3d at
   234. We therefore hold that Nacogdoches County is immune from suit. The
   district court’s contrary decision is REVERSED and Finchum’s TWA
   claim against Defendant-Appellant Nacogdoches County is DISMISSED
   WITH PREJUDICE.

                                          5