Carver v. Atwood
18 F.4th 494
| 5th Cir. | 2021Background:
- Tiffany Carver, a TDCJ corrections officer, sued three former coworkers for sexual assault under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Texas tort law, naming the individuals in their official capacities; she also sued TDCJ and the Stiles Unit.
- The district court granted TDCJ and Stiles Unit’s sovereign-immunity motion and dismissed them; the opinion did not address the individual defendants.
- The three individual defendants never answered; the clerk entered default and the court issued then canceled a show-cause hearing.
- The district court sua sponte dismissed Carver’s claims against the individual defendants with prejudice and without giving Carver notice or an opportunity to respond, reasoning official-capacity money-damages claims were barred by sovereign immunity.
- Carver appealed; the Fifth Circuit reviewed de novo and found the district court erred by dismissing with prejudice without notice and remanded.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a district court may sua sponte dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction | Carver: court may dismiss for lack of jurisdiction but must follow fair procedure | Defendants: sovereign immunity deprives court of jurisdiction, so dismissal is proper | Court: yes, court may sua sponte dismiss for lack of jurisdiction (Rule 12(h)(3)) |
| Whether court may dismiss sua sponte with prejudice without notice or opportunity to respond | Carver: dismissal with prejudice without notice deprived her of procedural rights and chance to amend sue in personal capacity | Defendants: no substantive defense to notice requirement—sovereign immunity ends case | Court: cannot dismiss with prejudice sua sponte without notice and opportunity to respond; fairness requires both |
| Whether a jurisdictional dismissal based on sovereign immunity must be without prejudice | Carver: dismissal should be without prejudice so plaintiff can refile in proper forum or amend | Defendants: sovereign immunity bars the claims; dismissal is jurisdictional | Court: jurisdictional dismissals (including sovereign immunity) must be without prejudice |
| Whether the "best-case" exception (no notice needed) applied | Carver: exception inapplicable because defendants never moved to dismiss and she had not eschewed amendment | Defendants: (implicit) court could apply exception if complaint already was plaintiff’s best case | Court: exception does not apply here (plaintiff had not had the opportunity to amend or respond) |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte McCardle, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 506 (establishing that lack of jurisdiction requires dismissal)
- Lozano v. Ocwen Fed. Bank, FSB, 489 F.3d 636 (discussing sua sponte dismissal and notice requirement)
- Carroll v. Fort James Corp., 470 F.3d 1171 (fairness requires notice and opportunity to respond before sua sponte dismissal with prejudice)
- Davoodi v. Austin Indep. Sch. Dist., 755 F.3d 307 (district court may dismiss on its own motion if procedure is fair)
- Warnock v. Pecos Cnty., 88 F.3d 341 (sovereign-immunity dismissals are jurisdictional and should be without prejudice)
- Alvarez v. Akwitti, 997 F.3d 211 (official-capacity § 1983 money-damages claims against TDCJ officers are barred by sovereign immunity; personal-capacity claims may proceed)
- Mitchell v. Bailey, 982 F.3d 937 (jurisdictional dismissal is not a merits determination and should be without prejudice)
- Brown v. Taylor, 829 F.3d 365 (‘‘best-case’’ exception to notice requirement explained)