Danos v. Jones
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 17975
| 5th Cir. | 2011Background
- Danos served as secretary to Judge Porteous during his Eastern District of Louisiana tenure.
- Porteous was impeached by the House and removed from office by the Senate (Dec. 8, 2010).
- The Fifth Circuit Judicial Council publicly reprimanded Porteous and barred him from new assignments for two years or until impeachment action finished, whichever earlier.
- The Council also suspended Porteous's staff hiring authority for the same period, affecting Danos's employment.
- Danos sued the Judicial Council and fourteen members in their official capacities, seeking declaratory, injunctive, monetary relief, and fees; the district court dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction due to sovereign immunity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sovereign immunity bars all claims against the Council and members. | Danos relies on Larson ultra vires or unconstitutional acts to avoid immunity. | The government immunity applies; Larson exceptions do not apply. | Yes, sovereign immunity bars the claims. |
| Whether the ultra vires exception permits relief for Danos for back pay and staff hiring actions. | Council acted beyond authority by suspending staff hiring. | Actions were within colorable statutory authority to remediate misconduct. | Back pay and monetary relief barred; ultra vires relief does not extend to monetary damages. |
| Whether Danos has standing to challenge the Council's constitutionally-based actions as a third party. | Danos has standing to challenge the judge’s rights via third-party standing. | Court should not allow third-party standing to circumvent appellate review structure. | Danos lacks prudential standing to assert the judge’s constitutional rights. |
| Whether the declaratory relief claim remains viable given mootness and sovereign-immunity constraints. | Relief could clarify ongoing governance and remedy reputational injury. | Injury moot; no viable declaratory relief remains; sovereign immunity bars relief. | Declaratory relief denied as moot and barred by sovereign immunity. |
Key Cases Cited
- Larson v. Domestic & Foreign Commerce Corp., 337 U.S. 682 (U.S. 1949) (ultra vires exception to sovereign immunity; actions beyond statutory powers may be enjoined)
- S. Sog, Inc. v. Roland, 644 F.2d 376 (5th Cir. Unit A May 1981) (sovereign-immunity considerations; officer-actions as sovereign or individual)
- Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490 (U.S. 1975) (prudential standing requirements; third-party standing limitations)
- Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400 (U.S. 1991) (standing; third-party interests)
- Zapata v. Smith, 437 F.2d 1024 (5th Cir. 1971) (Larson exception; back-pay considerations)
- Harris v. City of Houston, 151 F.3d 186 (5th Cir. 1998) (mootness and injury-in-fact considerations in relief claims)
- Foretich v. United States, 351 F.3d 1198 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (reputational injury and mootness in declaratory contexts)
- Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574 (U.S. 1999) (jurisdictional bar when relief would require independent sovereign action)
- Chiles v. Thornburgh, 865 F.2d 1197 (11th Cir. 1989) (prudential standing and ultra vires considerations)
- Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (U.S. 1984) (limits on remedial relief under sovereign immunity)
- Geyen v. Marsh, 775 F.2d 1303 (5th Cir. 1985) (Larson framework after 1976 amendments)