Texas Department of Transportation v. Malcolm G. Dyer
358 S.W.3d 698
Tex. App.2011Background
- Interlocutory appeals from orders denying pleas to the jurisdiction by the Texas Department of Transportation and Hidalgo County.
- Hidalgo County condemned about 1.48 acres of Dyer’s land in 2006 for Jackson Road expansion; Special Commissioners assessed damages in 2006 after notice issues claimed by Dyer.
- Department and County allegedly entered the land in 2007, stored equipment, damaged access, and diminished mining income.
- Dyer sued in 2008–2009 asserting inverse condemnation, due-process/ takings claims, PRPRPA claims, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim, trespass, and attorney’s fees; later amended to include declaratory relief.
- Trial court denied the pleas to the jurisdiction; the Departments and County’s accelerated appeals were consolidated for review.
- The court held the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over all challenged claims and dismissed them with prejudice, except inverse condemnation which was not challenged on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction over trespass claim | Dyer asserts viable waiver under the Act giving relief for trespass. | Trespass is an intentional tort not waived by the Texas Tort Claims Act. | Trespass lacks immunity waiver; dismissed. |
| PRPRPA claims against state agency and political subdivision | PRPRPA should permit claims against the Department and County with tolling. | Timely exhaustion and 180-day filing requirements apply; no tolling for political subdivisions. | Department: not exhausted; County: improper filing; both claims dismissed. |
| Claims under Texas Constitution Art I, §19 and declaratory judgment | Seeking money damages and declaratory relief for §19 violations. | No money damages or declaratory-judgment remedy against state or subdivision absent waiver. | Subject-matter jurisdiction lacking for §19 claims and declaratory-judgment relief; dismissed. |
| Section 1983 claim and ripeness | §1983 claim against the Department and County for federal rights violations; seek attorney’s fees. | Department not a “person”; 1983 claim against County not ripe pending state inverse condemnation. | Department not a person under §1983; claim not ripe against County; fees denied. |
| Attorney’s fees and overall jurisdiction | Requests attorney’s fees under multiple theories. | Attorney’s fees unavailable where only inverse condemnation is viable and not subject to appeal. | No jurisdiction over attorney’s fees; overall dismissal affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Thomas v. Long, 207 S.W.3d 334 (Tex. 2006) (addressed claim-by-claim dismissal on sovereign immunity appeals)
- Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989) (state sovereign immunity; state officials not ‘persons’ under §1983)
- BP Am. Prod. Co., 290 S.W.3d 345 (Tex. App.—Austin 2009) (timely contested case is a jurisdictional prerequisite under PRPRPA)
- Harris County v. Sykes, 136 S.W.3d 635 (Tex. 2004) (defines political subdivisions and timing for PRPRPA)
- City of Houston v. Williams, 216 S.W.3d 827 (Tex. 2007) (declaratory judgments cannot waive immunity when relief is monetary)
- Town of Flower Mound v. Stafford Estates, L.P., 135 S.W.3d 620 (Tex. 2004) (inverse-condemnation and just compensation framework under state remedies)
- Crockett, Tex. Dept. of Transp. v., 257 S.W.3d 412 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2008) (case law on agency immunity and review in PRPRPA context)