Court Opinion

ID: 9917342
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-12 01:01:05.3982+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:02:24.519846
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-40290        Document: 00517030382             Page: 1      Date Filed: 01/11/2024

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

                                      No. 23-40290                            FILED
                                                                       January 11, 2024
                                    Summary Calendar
                                    ____________                         Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                              Clerk
   Cathy Haynes,

                                                                    Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                            versus

   Turner Bass & Associates; Michael Bass; Damariscotta
   Limited and Company; James E. Bass, Deceased; Christine
   Bass, Deceased; Unknown Defendants; State of Texas;
   County of Smith; City of Tyler, Texas,

                                              Defendants—Appellees.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Eastern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 6:20-CV-192
                     ______________________________

   Before Wiener, Stewart, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Plaintiff-Appellant Cathy Haynes, proceeding pro se, appeals the
   order of the district court dismissing her claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and
   the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) filed against Defendant-

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-40290      Document: 00517030382          Page: 2    Date Filed: 01/11/2024

                                    No. 23-40290

   Appellees the State of Texas, Smith County, and the City of Tyler, Texas
   (the “Public Defendants”). She also appeals the district court’s dismissal of
   her ADA claims against the defendants who ran the self-storage facility (the
   “Storage Company Defendants”). In her amended complaint, Haynes
   alleges that the Storage Company Defendants violated her rights, and the
   Public Defendants failed to protect her rights, after the storage company
   allegedly disposed of the property she kept in a rental unit without providing
   the required notice and accommodating her disability.
          By her failure to brief, Haynes has abandoned any challenge to the
   dismissal of her ADA claims against the Public Defendants and the Storage
   Company Defendants. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir.
   1993). As for the arguments that Haynes has briefed on appeal, we discern
   no error in the dismissal of her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims against the City of
   Tyler and Smith County, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
   12(b)(6), for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See
   Ramirez v. Guadarrama, 3 F.4th 129, 133 (5th Cir. 2021); see also DeShaney v.
   Winnebago Cnty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 489 U.S. 189, 195 (1989).
          We likewise discern no error in the dismissal of her claims against the
   State of Texas for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Cozzo v. Tangipahoa
   Par. Council-President Gov’t, 279 F.3d 273, 280 (5th Cir. 2002). The State is
   immune from all of Haynes’s claims absent waiver or abrogation, and only
   state officials, not the State, may be enjoined prospectively.        See P.R.
   Aqueduct & Sewer Auth. v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 506 U.S. 139, 146 (1993);
   Turnage v. Britton, 29 F.4th 232, 239 (5th Cir. 2022). None of these
   limitations on the principle of sovereign immunity apply here.
          Finally, the district court acted within its wide discretion in declining
   to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Haynes’s state law claims. See

                                          2
Case: 23-40290       Document: 00517030382       Page: 3   Date Filed: 01/11/2024

                                  No. 23-40290

   Heggemeier v. Caldwell Cnty., 826 F.3d 861, 872 (5th Cir. 2016); 28 U.S.C.
   § 1367(c), (d).
          AFFIRMED.

                                       3