Russell v. Colmenero ( 2023 )

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