Court Opinion

ID: 9883012
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 00:00:31.126543+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:16:43.158048
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-10160        Document: 00516921792             Page: 1      Date Filed: 10/05/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________
                                                                               United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit
                                      No. 23-10160
                                    Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                    ____________                                October 5, 2023
                                                                                 Lyle W. Cayce
   Samuel T. Russell,                                                                 Clerk

                                                                    Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                            versus

   Angela Colmenero, State of Texas Attorney General; Megan
   LaVoie Weaver, Administrative Director of the Office of the Court,

                                              Defendants—Appellees.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Northern District of Texas
                              USDC No. 3:22-CV-1648
                     ______________________________

   Before Higginbotham, Stewart, and Southwick, Circuit
   Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Samuel T. Russell filed a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C.
   §§ 1981 and 1983 against Ken Paxton, the Attorney General for the State of
   Texas, and Megan LaVoie Weaver, the Administrative Director of the Texas
   Office of Court Administration, challenging a decision by Texas authorities

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-10160      Document: 00516921792            Page: 2    Date Filed: 10/05/2023

                                      No. 23-10160

   to place Russell’s daughter in foster care for 16 days in February 2019.
   Russell appeals from the district court’s dismissal of his pro se civil action for
   lack of jurisdiction on Eleventh Amendment grounds and from the denial of
   his motion for default judgment.
          We review a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction de novo.
   JTB Tools & Oilfield Servs., L.L.C. v. United States, 831 F.3d 597, 599 (5th
   Cir. 2016).    Likewise, we review an Eleventh Amendment immunity
   determination de novo. Hale v. King, 642 F.3d 492, 497 (5th Cir. 2011).
          “Federal court jurisdiction is limited by the Eleventh Amendment
   and the principle of sovereign immunity that it embodies.” Vogt v. Bd. of
   Comm’rs of Orleans Levee Dist., 294 F.3d 684, 688 (5th Cir. 2002). In
   particular, “[f]ederal courts are without jurisdiction over suits against a state,
   a state agency, or a state official in his official capacity unless that state has
   waived its sovereign immunity or Congress has clearly abrogated it.” Moore
   v. La. Bd. of Elementary & Secondary Educ., 743 F.3d 959, 963 (5th Cir. 2014).
   “Despite this bar, a federal court may enjoin a state official in his official
   capacity from taking future actions in furtherance of a state law that offends
   federal law or the federal Constitution.” Id. (discussing Ex Parte Young, 209
   U.S. 123 (1908)). For the Ex Parte Young exception to apply, however, a
   plaintiff must allege an ongoing violation of federal law and seek relief that
   properly can be characterized as prospective. See Verizon Md., Inc. v. Pub.
   Serv. Comm’n of Md., 535 U.S. 635, 645 (2002).
          Relevant to this case, “Texas has not consented to be sued in federal
   court by resident or nonresident citizens regarding its activities to protect the
   welfare of children, nor has state sovereign immunity been eviscerated by
   Congress with the passage of section 1983,” Stem v. Ahearn, 908 F.2d 1, 4
   (5th Cir. 1991), or § 1981, see Sessions v. Rusk State Hosp., 648 F.2d 1066, 1069
   (5th Cir. 1981). Accordingly, the Eleventh Amendment bars federal court

                                           2
Case: 23-10160      Document: 00516921792           Page: 3    Date Filed: 10/05/2023

                                     No. 23-10160

   jurisdiction over Russell’s claim for money damages against Paxton and
   Weaver in their official capacities. See NiGen Biotech, L.L.C. v. Paxton, 804
   F.3d 389, 394 (5th Cir. 2015). To the extent that Russell is also seeking
   injunctive relief against those officials, such claim does not fall within the Ex
   Parte Young exception to the Eleventh Amendment immunity because
   Russell’s complaint does not allege an ongoing violation of federal law. See
   id.
          Because the district court therefore lacked subject matter jurisdiction
   over Russell’s claims, the district court could not have granted a default
   judgment even if one had been warranted. See Sys. Pipe & Supply, Inc. v. M/V
   Viktor Kurnatovskiy, 242 F.3d 322, 324 (5th Cir. 2001); Bryant v. Tex. Dept.
   of Aging and Disability Servs., 781 F.3d 764, 769 (5th Cir. 2015). Accordingly,
   the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion for
   default judgment. See Lewis v. Lynn, 236 F.3d 766, 767 (5th Cir. 2001).
          In view of the foregoing, the judgment of the district court is
   AFFIRMED.

                                          3