Guthrie v. Garcia
352 S.W.3d 307
Tex. App.2011Background
- Guthrie and Staudt sought mandamus relief under Texas Government Code § 552.321 against Adrian Garcia in his official capacity as Harris County Sheriff to compel public information disclosure.
- They claimed Garcia is the officer for public information for the information at issue; they did not sue Harris County.
- A copy of the petition was served on Harris County, though the pleading did not name Harris County as a defendant or respondent.
- The Sheriff and Harris County answered; the trial court granted summary judgment for the Sheriff on the theory that the Sheriff’s claims were redundant of any claims against Harris County.
- The court of appeals held the redundancy theory not applicable here because the Requestors sought relief only against the Sheriff and because a proper mandamus defendant under 552.321 is the officer for public information, not the governmental body.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the Sheriff entitled to summary judgment on redundancy when the Requestors sue only the Sheriff under 552.321? | Guthrie/Staudt contend no redundancy; they did not sue Harris County. | Garcia argues the Sheriff’s claims are redundant to Harris County’s. | No merit; redundancy does not support dismissal here. |
| Who is the proper party to be sued for mandamus under § 552.321—officer for public information or the governmental body? | Requestors rely on officer for public information. | Defendant relies on cases treating the entity as the target. | The proper party is the officer for public information; reversal and remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- A&T Consultants, Inc. v. Sharp, 904 S.W.2d 668 (Tex.1995) (holds the proper party under § 552.321 is the officer for public information)
- City of El Paso v. Heinrich, 284 S.W.3d 366 (Tex.2009) (distinguishes between official-capacity suits for nonmonetary relief)
- Tex. Dep't of Transp. v. Esters, 343 S.W.3d 226 (Tex.App.-Hou. (14th Dist.) 2011) ( Eleventh Amendment / Ex parte Young distinction shown)
- Winograd v. Clear Lake City Water Auth., 811 S.W.2d 147 (Tex.App.-Houston (1st Dist.) 1991) (treats claims against official vs. entity in nonmonetary contexts)