Oscar Salinas v. Texas Workforce Commission, et al

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [13-51125 Affirmed] Judge: TMR , Judge: EHJ , Judge: ECP. Mandate pull date is 07/10/2014 [13-51125]

Case: 13-51125

Document: 00512669865

Page: 1

Date Filed: 06/19/2014

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-51125
Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit

FILED
June 19, 2014

OSCAR SALINAS,
Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk

TEXAS WORKFORCE COMMISSION; ANDRES ALCANTAR, in His
Individual and Official Capacity; TOM PAUKEN, in His Individual and
Official Capacity; ELAINE TURNER, in Her Individual and Official
Capacity; PETE LAURIE, in His Individual and Official Capacity; ROSA
PEREZ, in Her Individual and Official Capacity; NICOLE WHITE, in Her
Individual and Official Capacity; SHAUNA SELLS, in Her Individual and
Official Capacity; JOANN CRAMPTON, in Her Individual and Official
Capacity; ROSE IGLESIAS, in Her Individual and Official Capacity,
Defendants - Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 1:11-CV-559
Before REAVLEY, JONES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH
CIR. R. 47.5.4.
*

Case: 13-51125

Document: 00512669865

Page: 2

Date Filed: 06/19/2014

No. 13-51125
Appellant Oscar Salinas appeals the district court’s dismissal of his
claims against the Texas Workforce Commission (TWC) and several employees
of the state government. For the reasons that follow, we AFFIRM.
On November 5, 2010, TWC notified Salinas that he received $422 of
unemployment benefits to which he was not entitled. TWC also determined
that Salinas was ineligible for further unemployment benefits because he had
failed to report to the TWC Tele-center as required. Salinas appealed these
determinations, and the TWC Appeals Tribunal reversed, initially determining
that Salinas did not owe TWC for overpaid benefits. TWC later determined,
however, that Salinas owed $193 in overpaid benefits. A TWC hearing officer
conducted a hearing confirming that Salinas owed TWC reimbursement for
overpaid benefits and Salinas appealed the decision first to the TWC Appeal
Tribunal and then to the Commission. Both entities affirmed the decision.
TWC informed Salinas that he had the right to further process by either filing
a motion for rehearing with the Commission or by filing a petition for judicial
review in a court of competent jurisdiction. Salinas paid the $193 and pursued
no further appeal.
On July 5, 2011, Salinas filed suit against Appellees, alleging state law
claims of conspiracy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and gross
negligence. He also makes a due process claim under the 14th Amendment
and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Appellees filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on
multiple grounds, and the district court assigned the motion to a magistrate
judge. The magistrate judge recommended dismissing the federal claims with
prejudice because they were barred by 11th Amendment and the federal claims
against individuals in their official capacities as barred by qualified immunity.
The magistrate judge also recommended the state law claims be dismissed
without prejudice. The district court rejected Salinas’s objections and adopted
the Report and Recommendation. Salinas now appeals.
2

Case: 13-51125

Document: 00512669865

Page: 3

Date Filed: 06/19/2014

No. 13-51125
STANDARD OF REVIEW
This court reviews de novo a district court’s decision to grant a motion to
dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1). Ballew v. Cont’l Airlines, Inc., 668 F.3d 777, 781
(5th Cir. 2012). The party asserting jurisdiction bears the burden of showing
that subject matter jurisdiction exists. Ramming v. United States, 281 F.3d
158, 161 (5th Cir. 2001). This court reviews “a district court's dismissal under
Rule 12(b)(6) de novo, accepting all well-pleaded facts as true and viewing
those facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs.” Doe ex rel. Magee v.
Covington Cnty. Sch. Dist. ex rel. Keys, 675 F.3d 849, 854 (5th Cir.2012) (en
banc) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). To avoid dismissal
under Rule 12(b)(6), plaintiffs must plead “enough facts to state a claim to
relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,
570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)
DISCUSSION
I.

11th Amendment Immunity.
“The Eleventh Amendment prohibits a private citizen from bringing suit

against a state in federal court unless the state consents.” Daigle v. Gulf State
Utlitites Co., Local Union No. 2286, 794 F.2d 974, 980 (5th Cir. 1986) (citing
Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1, 10 S. Ct. 504 (1890)). TWC is an agency of the
State of Texas and therefore all claims brought against it are barred by the
Eleventh Amendment.
The Eleventh Amendment also “generally precludes actions against
state officers in their official capacities.” McCarthy ex rel. Travis v. Hawkins,
381 F.3d 407, 412 (5th Cir. 2004). However, in Ex Parte Young the Supreme
Court created an exception for suits seeking prospective relief for violations of
federal law against state officers in their official capacity. 209 U.S. 123 (1908).
While Salinas argues that his claims seek injunctive relief to remedy alleged
ongoing violations of federal law, his primary claim is for monetary damages.
3

Case: 13-51125

Document: 00512669865

Page: 4

Date Filed: 06/19/2014

No. 13-51125
Nothing in the complaint supports the vague assertion that he seeks
prospective relief. Conclusory statements are insufficient to plead a claim, and
they do not establish jurisdiction under the Ex Parte Young exception. All
claims against the state officers in their official capacities were properly
dismissed.
II.

Qualified Immunity.
Salinas also brought due process claims against individual defendants

in their individual capacity under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Section 1983 claims
against public officials in their individual capacities are subject to the defense
of qualified immunity. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818, 105 S. Ct. 2727,
2738 (1982) (“government officials performing discretionary functions
generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct
does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which
a reasonable person would have known.”). To evaluate a qualified immunity
defense the court must inquire: “(1) whether the defendant’s conduct violated
a constitutional right, and (2) whether the defendant’s conduct was objectively
unreasonably in light of clearly established law at the time of the violation.”
Terry v. Hubert, 609 F.3d 757, 761 (5th Cir. 2010 (citation omitted).
Salinas has not shown that any defendant violated his constitutional
rights or clearly established law. He asserts that he was deprived of due
process, but concedes that TWC notified him of the debt, and provided both a
hearing and means to appeal. Salinas appealed the initial result, and when
his appeal failed he was afforded an additional opportunity to appeal to the
Commissioner or to challenge the determination in state court. He admits that
he chose not to do so. Salinas’s failure to exhaust administrative and state
court remedies is fatal to his due process claim. Burns v. Harris County Bail
Bond Bd., 139 F.3d 513, 519 (5th Cir. 1998).
4

Case: 13-51125

Document: 00512669865

Page: 5

Date Filed: 06/19/2014

No. 13-51125
Because Salinas cannot show that a constitutional right was violated, he
cannot overcome the defense of qualified immunity.

Accordingly, the

§ 1983 claims against the individual defendants in their individual capacities
were properly dismissed.
III.

State Law Claims.
After dismissing the federal claims against all defendants, the district

court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Salinas’s state law
claims. “When a district court exercises its discretion to dismiss state law
claims, it must do so without prejudice so that the plaintiff may refile in the
appropriate court.” McCreary v. Richardson, 783 F.3d 651, 661 (5th Cir. 2013)
(citing Bass v. Parkwood Hosp., 180 F.3d 234, 246 (5th Cir. 1999)). Here, the
district court dismissed the claims without prejudice, and Salinas has not
shown any error with respect to the dismissal.
The district court’s order dismissing the complaint is AFFIRMED.

5