927 F.3d 343
5th Cir.2019Background
- Plaintiff Ryan Sissom, pro se, sued University of Texas at Austin, UT High School, and three UT officials in their official capacities alleging "gaslighting" and RICO violations based on grading/ranking policies while he was a student.
- UT High School is an online high-school program created in 1998 and governed as a department of the University of Texas at Austin.
- The district court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, holding defendants entitled to sovereign (Eleventh Amendment) immunity; Sissom appealed.
- The Fifth Circuit reviewed the Rule 12(b)(1) dismissal de novo and applied the Clark six-factor test to determine whether UT High School is an arm of the state.
- The court found most Clark factors (state law status, funding, autonomy, statewide concern, property control) support treating UT High School as an instrumentality of the State of Texas and thus immune.
- Sissom failed to press argued issues about the University and individual defendants on appeal, so those challenges were deemed abandoned.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether UT High School is an arm of the state entitled to Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity | UT High School is a distinct school and its practices harmed Sissom; immunity should not bar his suit | UT High School is a department of UT Austin, dependent on the University and the Board of Regents, and thus an arm of the State | UT High School is an instrumentality of the State of Texas; Eleventh Amendment bars the suit |
| Whether the district court had subject-matter jurisdiction over claims against UT High School and University defendants | Sissom asserted federal RICO and "gaslighting" claims arising from school policies; jurisdiction exists | Defendants asserted sovereign immunity deprives federal courts of jurisdiction | Court affirmed dismissal for lack of jurisdiction due to sovereign immunity |
| Whether Sissom waived appellate arguments as to University and individual officials | N/A (no developed appellate argument) | Appellees argued Sissom did not brief issues, so they are forfeited | Court held Sissom abandoned those issues on appeal |
| Whether appellate court should consider Sissom’s request to disqualify Texas AG from representing UT High School | Sissom asked for disqualification, arguing UT High School is not a valid district under state law | Defendants/AG would oppose, and issue was not raised below | Court declined to address disqualification because it was not raised in district court |
Key Cases Cited
- Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706 (sovereign immunity is intrinsic to state sovereignty and not limited to the Eleventh Amendment)
- Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 (Congress cannot abrogate state sovereign immunity under Article I)
- Cozzo v. Tangipahoa Par. Council–President Gov’t, 279 F.3d 273 (Eleventh Amendment bars suits for money damages and injunctive relief against state agencies)
- Clark v. Tarrant Cty., Tex., 798 F.2d 736 (established six-factor test for arm-of-the-state analysis)
- Providence Behavioral Health v. Grant Rd. Pub. Util. Dist., 902 F.3d 448 (discussing Clark test application)
- Hudson v. City of New Orleans, 174 F.3d 677 (articulating Clark factors and test goal)
- Saenz v. Univ. Interscholastic League, 487 F.2d 1026 (holding University of Texas entity to be a state agency)
- Chhim v. Univ. of Tex. at Austin, 836 F.3d 467 (University of Texas at Austin is entitled to sovereign immunity)
- Bd. of Trs. of the Univ. of Ala. v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356 (distinguishing state entities from local governments for immunity purposes)
- Meyers ex rel. Benzing v. Texas, 410 F.3d 236 (district court Rule 12(b)(1) dismissal reviewed de novo)