Carnes v. Tijerina et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AMARILLO DIVISION
TERRY DALE CARNES,
TDCJ-CID No. 1756290,
§
§
§
Plaintiff, §
§
v. § 2:24-CV-134-Z-BR
§
TEXAS TECH MEDICAL, et al., §
§
Defendants. §
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION
TO GRANT MOTION TO DISMISS
Before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) filed by
Defendants Texas Tech University Health Services Center (“TTUHSC”) and Texas Department
of Criminal Justice (“TDCJ”) (collectively, “Defendants”). For the reasons stated below, the
Motion should be GRANTED.
I. LEGAL ANALYSIS
A. Factual Background.
In his Complaint, Carnes alleges that Defendant Shelby Hull intentionally broke his arm
while handcuffing him to take him to medical for an insulin shot. Carnes sues Hull, as well as
numerous officers and medical providers, claiming they failed to treat his injury despite his
repeated requests for aid. He also sues TDCJ and TTHUSC without specifying the basis upon
which he sues them. Defendants TDCJ and TTHUSC ask the Court to dismiss the claims against
them based upon sovereign immunity.
B. Sovereign Immunity.
As a sovereign entity, a state may not be sued without its consent. Therefore, under the
Case 2:24-cv-00134-Z-BR Document 59 Filed 03/31/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID <pageID>

2
Eleventh Amendment, “[f]ederal courts are without jurisdiction over suits against a state, a state
agency, or a state official in his official capacity unless that state has waived its sovereign
immunity or Congress has clearly abrogated it.” Moore v. Louisiana Bd. of Elementary &
Secondary Educ., 743 F.3d 959, 963 (5th Cir. 2014).
Carnes’s claims against Defendants TDCJ and TTUHSC are without merit because they
are simply another way of attempting to sue the State of Texas. See Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S.
159, 165-66 (1985). The Eleventh Amendment “prohibits a private citizen from bringing suit
against a state in federal court unless the state consents.” Daigle v. Gulf State Utilities Co., Local
Union Number 2286, 794 F.2d 974, 980 (5th Cir. 1986). When a state agency is the named
defendant, the Eleventh Amendment bars all suits against it, regardless of the relief sought. Cox v.
Texas, 354 F. App’x 901, 902 (5th Cir. 2009). The Fifth Circuit has held that both TDCJ and
TTUHSC are state agencies that enjoy immunity from suit in federal court. Id. at 902 (citing Harris
v. Angelina County, Tex., 31 F.3d 331, 338 n.7 (5th Cir. 1994); United States v. Texas Tech Univ.,
171 F.3d 279, 289 (5th Cir. 1999) (“The Eleventh Amendment cloaks Texas Tech University and
Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center with sovereign immunity as state institutions.”)
(citing Wallace v. Texas Tech Univ., 80 F.3d 1042, 1047 n.3 (5th Cir. 1996)); Pickett v. Texas Tech
Univ. Health Scis. Ctr., 37 F.4th 1013, 1025 (5th Cir. 2022) (“Texas Tech University [is] an agency
of Texas that enjoys sovereign immunity.”). Accordingly, TDCJ’s and TTUHSC’s motion to
dismiss should be granted on sovereign immunity grounds.
II. RECOMMENDATION
For the reasons stated above, the Magistrate Judge concludes that Defendants’ Motion to
Dismiss should be GRANTED.
Case 2:24-cv-00134-Z-BR Document 59 Filed 03/31/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID <pageID>

3
III. INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE
The United States District Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Findings, Conclusions
and Recommendation to each party by the most efficient means available.
IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.
ENTERED March 31, 2026.
* NOTICE OF RIGHT TO OBJECT *
Any party may object to these proposed findings, conclusions and recommendation. In the
event parties wish to object, they are hereby NOTIFIED that the deadline for filing objections is
fourteen (14) days from the date of filing as indicated by the “entered” date directly above the
signature line. Service is complete upon mailing, Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(C), or transmission by
electronic means, Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(E). Any objections must be filed on or before the
fourteenth (14th) day after this recommendation is filed as indicated by the “entered” date. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d).
Any such objections shall be made in a written pleading entitled “Objections to the
Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation.” Objecting parties shall file the written objections
with the United States District Clerk and serve a copy of such objections on all other parties. A
party’s failure to timely file written objections shall bar an aggrieved party, except upon grounds
of plain error, from attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed factual findings, legal
conclusions, and recommendation set forth by the Magistrate Judge and accepted by the district
court. See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428–29 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc),
superseded by statute on other grounds, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), as recognized in ACS Recovery
Servs., Inc. v. Griffin, 676 F.3d 512, 521 n.5 (5th Cir. 2012); Rodriguez v. Bowen, 857 F.2d 275,
276-77 (5th Cir. 1988).
Case 2:24-cv-00134-Z-BR Document 59 Filed 03/31/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID <pageID>