Haverkamp v. Linthicum
6f4th662
| 5th Cir. | 2021Background:
- Plaintiff David Allen Haverkamp (aka Bobbie Lee Haverkamp), a transgender woman incarcerated in TDCJ, sued state officials seeking sex-reassignment surgery, a long-hair pass, and access to female commissary items.
- TDCJ contracts medical care to UTMB; the Correctional Managed Health Care Committee (CMHC or "the Committee") — composed of appointed physicians and health officials — promulgates inmate medical policies (including Policy G-51.11) and resolves healthcare disputes between TDCJ and providers.
- Haverkamp’s operative pro se complaint attached Policy G-51.11, alleged UTMB physicians recommended surgery but TDCJ refused to pay, and named Committee members in their official capacities under the Ex parte Young framework to overcome sovereign immunity.
- The district court denied multiple Committee members’ motions to dismiss, finding Haverkamp plausibly alleged an equal protection claim and that Ex parte Young applied; the State appealed the sovereign-immunity ruling.
- The Fifth Circuit concluded Haverkamp failed plausibly to allege that the named Committee members (including Dr. Linthicum) had the requisite connection to enforcement of the challenged decisions or policies, vacated the denial of sovereign immunity, and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ex parte Young permits suit against Committee members (sovereign immunity) | Committee promulgates/enforces Policy G-51.11 and adjudicates disputes; thus can be sued to obtain prospective relief | Committee only formulates policy and lacks enforcement role; Eleventh Amendment bars suit | Plaintiff failed to plead a sufficient enforcement connection; sovereign-immunity defense not overcome; vacated and remanded |
| Whether complaint plausibly alleges the Committee adjudicated or enforced a decision denying surgery | There was a disagreement between Dr. Meyer (treating physician) and TDCJ and TDCJ refused to pay for surgery, implying Committee involvement | Complaint lacks allegations who decided denial, whether the decision was brought to the Committee, or that the Committee adjudicated any dispute | Complaint does not plausibly allege the Committee adjudicated/enforced a decision; insufficient for Ex parte Young |
| Whether Dr. Linthicum (TDCJ Health Services Director) is sufficiently connected to challenged decisions | Linthicum oversees health services and so is responsible for denial decisions | No specific allegations tying Linthicum to the individualized decisions; too generalized given large inmate population | No plausible factual link alleged; cannot infer Linthicum’s personal role |
| Whether federal relief for affirmative discretionary acts or state-law claims is barred (standing, Pennhurst, and ability to order surgery) | Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to obtain surgery and policy change | State argues federal courts cannot compel affirmative discretionary acts and Pennhurst bars state-law claims seeking relief under state law | Court declined to reach these arguments on appeal; remanded for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908) (establishes exception to Eleventh Amendment for suits against state officials to enjoin ongoing federal-law violations)
- City of Austin v. Paxton, 943 F.3d 993 (5th Cir. 2019) (discusses Ex parte Young and sovereign-immunity inquiry)
- Gibson v. Collier, 920 F.3d 212 (5th Cir. 2019) (limits available Eighth Amendment claims in the prison gender-dysphoria context)
- Laufer v. Mann Hosp., L.L.C., 996 F.3d 269 (5th Cir. 2021) (pleading-stage jurisdictional standard; treat well-pleaded facts as true)
- K.P. v. LeBlanc, 627 F.3d 115 (5th Cir. 2010) (explains Ex parte Young’s legal-fiction rationale and connection requirement)
- Va. Office for Prot. & Advocacy v. Stewart, 563 U.S. 247 (2011) (Ex parte Young requires only that complaint allege ongoing federal-law violation seeking prospective relief)
- Mi Familia Vota v. Abbott, 977 F.3d 461 (5th Cir. 2020) (promulgation of a policy or order alone does not necessarily create enforcement authority for Ex parte Young)
- Puerto Rico Aqueduct & Sewer Auth. v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 506 U.S. 139 (1993) (denial of sovereign immunity is immediately appealable under collateral-order doctrine)
- Pennhurst State School & Hosp. v. Halderman, 456 U.S. 89 (1982) (limits on federal-court relief when claims rest on alleged violations of state law)