Cecil Adams and Maxine Adams v. Harris County and Christopher A. Prine, Clerk of the First Court of Appeals
04-15-00287-CV
| Tex. App. | Dec 28, 2015Background
- Maxine and Cecil Adams recovered a judgment against Rebecca Ross; Ross deposited remaining funds into the court registry and the Adamses later obtained a writ of garnishment.
- The Adamses appealed an earlier judgment to the First Court of Appeals; that appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution and costs were assessed against Maxine Adams; the First Court clerk (Christopher Prine) issued a bill of costs.
- Harris County filed an interpleader in district court over the deposited funds; Prine disclaimed interest and was nonsuited from the interpleader, but the Adamses asserted counterclaims including a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against Prine alleging improper billing and deprivation of property.
- Prine filed a plea to the jurisdiction asserting sovereign (official-capacity) and quasi-judicial (individual-capacity) immunity; the trial court granted the plea and dismissed all claims against Prine with prejudice.
- On interlocutory appeal the Fourth Court of Appeals: (1) affirmed dismissal of official-capacity claims against Prine (sovereign/Eleventh Amendment immunity); (2) dismissed for lack of jurisdiction the appeal of the trial court’s dismissal of Prine in his individual capacity (quasi-judicial immunity not a governmental-unit plea under §51.014(a)(8)); and (3) dismissed the appeal of the trial court’s denial of the Adamses’ motion to dismiss the interpleader for lack of jurisdiction.
- The court ordered that Harris County and Prine recover appellate costs from the Adamses, prompting the Adamses’ en banc motion challenging taxation of costs under §51.015 and seeking review of the court’s treatment of individual-capacity immunity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §51.014(a)(8) authorizes interlocutory appeal of trial-court plea to the jurisdiction where a governmental official asserted both official- and individual-capacity defenses | Adams: §51.014(a)(8) allows review of the plea to jurisdiction and the court should resolve both official- and individual-capacity immunity in the interlocutory appeal | Appellees: §51.014(a)(8) authorizes appeal only of pleas by a governmental unit (official-capacity); individual-capacity quasi-judicial immunity is a personal defense and not reviewable under that subsection | Court: Appeal authorized only as to the official-capacity plea; the portion dismissing individual-capacity claims is not appealable under §51.014(a)(8) and was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
| Whether the trial-court order denying the Adamses’ motion to dismiss Harris County’s interpleader is reviewable while the interlocutory appeal is pending (Rule 29.6) | Adams: Rule 29.6 permits review of interlocutory orders that impair the relief sought on appeal, so review is appropriate | Harris County/Prine: The interpleader-denial order is not immediately appealable and Adamses offered no argument showing the order impairs the effectiveness of relief sought | Court: Denial of the interpleader-motion is not appealable and Adamses failed to show Rule 29.6(2) grounds; appeal of that order dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
| Whether sovereign/Eleventh Amendment immunity bars an official-capacity §1983 suit against Prine | Adams: alleged billing practices and due-process deprivation supported suit | Prine: Official-capacity claims are suits against the State/governmental unit and are barred by sovereign/Eleventh Amendment immunity in §1983 suits | Court: Held sovereign/Eleventh Amendment immunity bars the official-capacity §1983 claims and affirmed dismissal of those claims |
| Whether appellate costs can be taxed against Adamses for an interlocutory appeal under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §51.015 | Adams: §51.015 does not permit taxation of costs in an appeal under §51.014(a)(8); no statutory right to attorney fees exists here | Appellees: court awarded costs under its rulings (court ordered costs recovered from appellants) | Court: The opinion taxed costs against Adamses; Adamses sought reconsideration arguing §51.015 does not authorize such an award for §51.014(a)(8) appeals (issue preserved in en banc motion) |
Key Cases Cited
- Heckman v. Williamson County, 369 S.W.3d 150 (Tex. 2012) (plea-to-jurisdiction standards and stepping into live pleadings and evidence when necessary)
- Tex. Dep't of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. 2004) (jurisdictional inquiry begins with the live pleading; courts may consider evidence when necessary)
- Tex. A & M Univ. Sys. v. Koseoglu, 233 S.W.3d 835 (Tex. 2007) (strict construction of §51.014(a) as narrow exception to final-judgment rule)
- Rusk State Hospital v. Black, 392 S.W.3d 88 (Tex. 2012) (section 51.014(a) does not divest appellate courts of authority to review immunity questions where jurisdiction exists)
- Bland Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Blue, 34 S.W.3d 547 (Tex. 2000) (courts may consider evidence beyond pleadings when necessary to resolve jurisdictional issues)
- Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21 (U.S. 1991) (distinguishing official-capacity suits from individual-capacity suits under §1983)
- Jack B. Anglin Co. v. Tipps, 842 S.W.2d 266 (Tex. 1992) (general rule that only final judgments are appealable)
- Sanders v. City of Grapevine, 218 S.W.3d 772 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2007) (order granting plea to the jurisdiction dismissing individual-capacity claims is not appealable under §51.014(a)(8))