555 S.W.3d 812
Tex. App.2018Background
- Four El Paso residents (appellants) who were held in criminal contempt by Senior Judge Jerry Woodard for failing to obey jury summons sued Judge Woodard and El Paso County seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and refunds of court costs/fees.
- Judge Woodard was dismissed from the suit on grounds of absolute judicial immunity; the County remained and filed a plea to the jurisdiction asserting governmental immunity.
- After the County's plea, appellants filed an amended petition asserting (1) an ultra vires claim (official acted without authority), (2) a Texas Constitutional "takings" claim, and (3) requests for declaratory relief and refunds (including a fourfold remedy under a repealed statute they invoked).
- The trial court granted the County’s plea and dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction; appellants appealed but did not seek leave to further amend after dismissal.
- On rehearing the court affirmed: appellants’ amended petition failed to plead any valid claim waiving the County’s immunity and the trial court did not reversibly err in dismissing without sua sponte allowing another amendment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether UDJA/declaratory relief could be used to void prior criminal contempt judgments and recover fees | Appellants argued UDJA permits declaring contempt judgments void and declaring collected fees illegal | County argued UDJA does not waive immunity for collateral attack on criminal contempt judgments or to seek money damages | Court: UDJA not appropriate to collaterally attack final criminal contempt judgments or to award refunds absent statutory waiver; habeas/mandamus or Article 103.008/appellate remedies are the proper routes |
| Whether appellants could recover a fourfold refund under Article 3909 / Local Government Code §118.801 | Appellants sought fourfold refund for illegal fees citing Article 3909 (extortion statute) | County argued Article 3909 was repealed and §118.801 does not apply to judges or the officers alleged | Court: Article 3909 repealed; §118.801 doesn’t list judges or support appellants’ claim—no statutory basis for fourfold recovery against County |
| Whether an ultra vires claim against the County survived pleading review (i.e., County immunity waived) | Appellants claimed officials acted without authority by imposing unauthorized costs/fees | County argued ultra vires targets officials (not the county), and Judge Woodard’s actions were judicial (immunized); Woodard already dismissed | Court: Ultra vires does not apply to judicial acts by a judge acting within jurisdictional bounds; appellants named only Judge Woodard (dismissed), so claim fails |
| Whether a Texas Constitutional takings claim was pled against the County | Appellants contended collection of fees was a taking for public use without compensation | County argued fee imposition is not eminent-domain style taking and is more like taxation/fee assessment (not a §17 taking) | Court: Assessment of court costs/fees is not a takings claim under Art. I §17; takings exception to immunity not shown |
| Whether a §1983 claim against the County was viable or preservable on appeal | Appellants (on appeal) suggested a §1983 claim for deprivation under color of law | County said §1983 not pled below and no opportunity was requested to amend — issue not preserved; also County liability requires municipal policy/custom causing violation | Court: §1983 not pled or preserved; no allegations of county policy/custom, so claim fails |
| Whether trial court erred by not sua sponte allowing another amendment after appellants’ failed first amendment | Appellants argued they should have been given another chance to amend jurisdictional defects | County argued appellants were already given an opportunity and failed to request further leave, so error not preserved | Court: No reversible error — appellants had a prior chance to amend, did not request further leave, and they failed to identify viable amendments that would cure defects |
Key Cases Cited
- Texas Dep't of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. 2004) (standard for plea to the jurisdiction and plaintiff’s burden to plead jurisdictional facts)
- IT–Davy, 74 S.W.3d 849 (Tex. 2002) (distinguishing declaratory relief from actions that effectively seek money damages against the state)
- Camacho v. Samaniego, 831 S.W.2d 804 (Tex. 1992) (county fee challenged as not statutorily authorized; declaratory relief and refund context)
- Reata Constr. Corp. v. City of Dallas, 197 S.W.3d 371 (Tex. 2006) (sovereign immunity background)
- Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9 (1991) (judicial immunity doctrine; judge immune for judicial acts)
- Travelers Ins. Co. v. Joachim, 315 S.W.3d 860 (Tex. 2010) (definition of a void judgment)
- City of El Paso v. Heinrich, 284 S.W.3d 366 (Tex. 2009) (ultra vires doctrine and limits on suits against governmental entities)