Gerard Matzen// Marsha McLane, in Her Official Capacity as Director of Texas Civil Commitment Office, and the Texas Civil Commitment Office v. Marsha McLane, in Her Official Capacity as Director of Texas Civil Commitment Office, and the Texas Civil Commitment Office// Cross-Appellee, Gerard Matzen, 604 S.W.3d 91

Background

Plaintiff Gerard Matzen, civilly committed, sued Texas Civil Commitment Office (TCCO) and its director alleging procedural due process and takings claims based on rules and cost-recovery practices and alleging Correct Care improperly withheld his work-program pay.
Matzen challenged appellees’ enforcement or failure to promulgate rules related to income and cost recovery for housing, treatment, and GPS monitoring.
The trial court faced a plea to the jurisdiction by appellees asserting sovereign immunity; the appellate disposition affirms dismissal of some claims for lack of jurisdiction but the opinion here (Justice Goodwin concurring in part and dissenting in part) disputes allowing jurisdiction over Matzen’s due process and takings claims.
Justice Goodwin would dismiss all of Matzen’s claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, concluding Matzen failed to plead facts showing waiver of sovereign immunity or applicability of an exception.
The record included a TCCO cost-recovery worksheet and Matzen’s civil-commitment order consistent with statutory/regulatory cost-recovery requirements; regulations limit recovery to actual costs.
Matzen had multiple opportunities to amend after the plea to the jurisdiction but did not allege facts or submit evidence curing the jurisdictional defects.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Matzen pleaded facts waiving sovereign immunity for procedural due process claim	Matzen says enforcement of nonconforming rules and withholding of work pay deprived him of procedural due process	Appellees say sovereign immunity bars suit absent pleaded facts showing waiver or ultra vires conduct	Court (Goodwin) would dismiss for lack of jurisdiction—Matzen failed to allege facts demonstrating waiver or ultra vires action
Whether Matzen pleaded facts waiving sovereign immunity for takings claim	Matzen contends taking of work-program pay and other property without due process/compensation	Appellees say regulations limit recovery to actual costs and Matzen did not allege he paid more than actual cost; sovereign immunity bars claim	Court (Goodwin) would dismiss—no facts showing net pecuniary loss or waiver of immunity
Whether APA/ultra vires review is available for agency’s alleged failure to promulgate rules	Matzen seeks relief tied to alleged failure to enact or to properly conform rules	Appellees argue APA generally does not authorize review of a decision not to promulgate rules; sovereign immunity not waived	Court (Goodwin) rejects APA-based jurisdiction for failure-to-prompt rule claims; plaintiff bears burden to plead facts showing waiver
Whether further factual development could cure jurisdictional defects	Matzen relied on additional allegations and argued record gaps should be filled to assess takings	Matzen had opportunities to amend and did not present facts/evidence showing over-recovery or invalid rules	Court (Goodwin) finds further amendment would not cure defect given evidence and regulatory scheme; would dismiss claims

Key Cases Cited

Hall v. McRaven, 508 S.W.3d 232 (Tex. 2017) (discussing sovereign immunity and the ultra vires exception)
Klumb v. Houston Mun. Emps. Pension Sys., 458 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. 2015) (sovereign immunity does not bar suit to vindicate constitutional rights but facially invalid claims do not waive immunity)
City of El Paso v. Heinrich, 284 S.W.3d 366 (Tex. 2009) (plaintiff must allege officials acted without legal authority or failed to perform purely ministerial act for ultra vires claim)
Texas Parks & Wildlife Dept. v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. 2004) (plaintiff must allege facts showing jurisdiction; court may consider submitted evidence when reviewing plea to jurisdiction)
Harris County v. Sykes, 136 S.W.3d 635 (Tex. 2004) (plaintiff given reasonable opportunity to amend must plead facts constituting waiver or face dismissal)
Andrade v. NAACP of Austin, 345 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. 2011) (substance of constitutional claim considered in plea to jurisdiction review)