`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 -
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
