Fifth Circuit Court Cases - Case Law and Opinions from the 5th Circuit Federal Court - Court of Appeals

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Opinions - 5th Circuit
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -CLICK HERE

This opinion or court case is from the Fifth Circuit Court or Appeals. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

LEGAL RESEARCH

COURT REPORTERS

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

PROCESS SERVERS

DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS

EXPERT WITNESSES

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

Legal News - Legal Headlines

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________
No. 98-30791
Summary Calendar
_____________________
JONATHAN F. CHAMPAGNE,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JEFFERSON PARISH SHERIFF'S OFFICE et al.,
Defendants,
LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONS
(Incorrectly sued as Louisiana Department of Corrections); MIKE
FOSTER, GOVERNOR, STATE OF LOUISIANA,
Defendants-Appellants.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
_________________________________________________________________
September 16, 1999
Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
The Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections
(LDPSC) and Louisiana Governor Mike Foster appeal the partial
denial of Eleventh Amendment and qualified immunity in Jonathan
Champagne's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. The district court denied
defendants' FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss regarding

Champagne's claim that he was knowingly worked beyond his
capacities in prison.
Denials of motions to dismiss on Eleventh Amendment or
qualified immunity grounds are appealable collateral orders when
based on issues of law. E.g., Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511,
525 (1985) (qualified immunity); Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer
Authority v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 506 U.S. 139, 147 (1993)
(Eleventh Amendment). Of course, we review issues of law de novo.
Western Alliance Ins. Co. v. Northern Ins. Co. of New York, 176
F.3d 825, 827 (5th Cir. 1999).
The Eleventh Amendment bars citizens' suits in federal court
against States and their alter egos. E.g., Voisin's Oyster House
v. Guidry, 799 F.2d 183, 185 (5th Cir. 1986). Whether an entity is
covered by a State's Eleventh Amendment immunity turns on the
entity's (1) status under state statutes and case law, (2) funding,
(3) local autonomy, (4) concern with local or statewide problems,
(5) ability to sue in its own name, and (6) right to hold and use
property. E.g., Hudson v. City of New Orleans, 174 F.3d 677, 681
(5th Cir. 1999). Funding is most important. Id. at 681-82. These
factors suggest that all Louisiana executive departments have
- 2 -

Eleventh Amendment immunity. Darlak v. Bobear, 814 F.2d 1055, 1060
n.5 (5th Cir. 1987).
All but the last two factors favor Eleventh Amendment immunity
for LDPSC. Louisiana statutes and cases place the LDPSC within the
executive branch, LA. REV. STAT. 36:4(A)(8); Hryhorchuk v. Smith, 390
So.2d 497, 502 (La. 1980); the LDPSC is state funded, Wilson v.
State of Louisiana Through Dept. of Public Safety and Corrections,
576 So.2d 490, 492 (La. 1991)(state liable for judgments against
LDPSC); the head of the LDPSC is appointed by the Governor and
serves at his pleasure, LA. REV. STAT. 36:403; and the agency is
charged with state-wide law enforcement and rehabilitation, LA. REV.
STAT. 36:401(B), which are described as "functions of the state",
LA. REV. STAT. 36:408. That LDPSC may sue and be sued, LA. REV. STAT.
36:401(A), and hold property, LA. REV. STAT. 36:406(B), is outweighed
by other factors, particularly State liability for LDPSC judgments.
"[B]ecause an important goal of the eleventh amendment is the
protection of states' treasuries, the most significant factor in
assessing an entity's status is whether a judgment against it will
be paid with state funds." McDonald v. Board of Miss. Levee
Comm'rs, 832 F.2d 901, 907 (5th Cir. 1987).
- 3 -

Section 1983 does not abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity,
Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 345 (1979); and Louisiana has not
waived it, LA. REV. STAT. 13:5106(A). Accordingly, the action
against LDPSC is barred. We REVERSE and REMAND with instructions
to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. See Voisin's
Oyster House, 799 F.2d at 188-89.
Governor Foster is entitled to qualified immunity because
Champagne's complaint alleges no personal involvement by the
Governor; and, of course, subordinates' acts trigger no individual
§ 1983 liability. E.g., Alton v. Texas A&M Univ., 168 F.3d 196,
200 (5th Cir. 1999). We REVERSE the denial of Governor Foster's
Rule 12(b)(6) motion and DISMISS the claim against him.
Champagne's motion to compel evidence and request subpoena
service is DENIED.
REVERSED AND REMANDED; MOTION DENIED
- 4 -