Davidson v. Region 16 Education Service Center
Filing
15
OPINION AND ORDER -- Plaintiff is barred from bringing suit in federal court against Region 16 Education Service Center because, as an arm of the state, it is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. Because this Court does not have jurisdiction it does not address the merits of Plaintiff's case. The case will be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 4 Motion to Dismiss filed by Region 16 Education Service Center terminated. (Ordered by Judge Mary Lou Robinson on 9/28/2011) (awc)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AMARILLO DIVISION
JOYCE MICHELLE DAVIDSON,
$
$
Plaintiff.
$
$
v.
NO. 2:11-CV-0117-J
$
$
REGION 16 EDUCATION SERVICE
CENTER,
$
$
$
Defendant,
$
OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Original Complaint filed
on July 29,2011. Plaintiff Davidson filed suit on May 31,2011, alleging, inter alia, she was
terminated for opposing unlawful practices by Region 16 Education Service Center under
HIPAA (Health Information Portability and Accountability Act) and the Texas Whistleblower
Act. Davidson alleges Region
16 was violating
HIPAA law. She claims she was discriminated
and retaliated against and terminated from her position at Defendants for bringing to light
HIPAA violations to her supervisors.
Defendant has moved to dismiss the suit, arguing Plaintiff s claim under HIPAA is barred
in federal court by Eleventh Amendment immunity. Defendant also argues Plaintiff fails to state
a claim upon which relief may be granted because HIPAA does not contain a private cause of
action for violations of HIPAA. Plaintiff argues Region 16 Education Service Center has waived
its sovereign immunity for "retaliatory personnel decisions" and that the federal courts
jurisdiction of her cause of action.
have
The Eleventh Amendment bars an individual from suing in federal court unless the state
voluntarily waives its immunity or Congress validly abrogates a state's sovereignty through an
act
of
Congress. See U.S. Const. amend.
Xl;
see e.g,
Postsecondary Educ. Expense Bd., 527 U.S. 666, 670
Coll.
Sav. Bank
v. Fla.
Prepaid
(1999). The Fifth Circuit in Perez
v.
Region 20 Education Service Center,307 F.3d 319 (5th Cir. 2009), states that it uses a six factor
test to determine whether a govemment institution is an 'oarm of the state" and entitled to
sovereign immunity. The factors are:
(l)
whether state statutes and case law view the entity as
an ann of the state; (2) the source of the entity's funding; (3) the entity's degree
of local
autonomy; (4) whether the entity is concerned with local, as opposed to statewide, problems; (5)
whether the entity has the authority to sue and be sued in its own name; and (6) whether the
entity has the right to hold and use the property. See Hudson v. City of New Orleans, 174 F.3d
677,682 (5th Cir. 1999). ln Perez, the Fifth Circuit analyzedthose factors and found:
Each of the six counsels in favor of immunity, some more strongly
than others. Combined, these factors make it clear that Region 20,
as one of Texas's Education Service Centers, is properly
considered an arm ofthe State ofTexas and thus enjoys Eleventh
Amendment immunity from suit in federal court.
Perez at
331. Plaintiff
argues that Texas, under $ 554 of the Texas Govemment Code, has
waived its sovereign immunity for state entities accused of retaliatory personnel decisions. TBx.
Gov't CooE $
554.0035 (2010).
In Perez, The Fifth Circuit ruled g 554 of the
Texas
Government Code waives Texas' sovereign immunity for claims brought under the Texas Labor
Code in state court but that
it does not waive federal Eleventh Amendment immunity.
See Perez,
307 F.3d at333 (citing Martinez v. Texas Dep't. of Crim. Justice,300 F.3d 567, 575-77 (5th Cir.
2010).
Plaintiff is barred from bringing suit in federal court against Region 16 Education Service
Center because, as an
irm of the state, it is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity.
Because
this Court does not have jurisdiction it does not address the merits of Plaintiffls case.
The case will be dismissed for lack ofjurisdiction.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
J4 {
Signed
this Q
I
day of September 2011.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?