United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Houston Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
KENNETH M. HOYT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
the Court are the defendant's, The Board of Regents of
the University of Texas System and the MD Anderson Cancer
Center (“UT-MDA”), motion to dismiss the
plaintiff's, Reynaldo Colindres, suit pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P., Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Having reviewed the
relevant documents on file, the Court determines that the
defendant's motion should be granted.
THE PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS AND CONTENTIONS
plaintiff brings a suit for breach of contract, substantive
due process violation(s) and procedural due process
violation(s) arising out of his employment termination. At
all relevant times the plaintiff was a nurse at UT-MDA. He
was terminated from his employment because “a heparin
drip” was improperly connected directly to a PICC line
in a patient. UT-MDA contends that the plaintiff's suit
is barred by sovereign immunity and that he lack of standing
because he failed to properly plead a claim for declaratory
and injunctive relief.
plaintiff asserts that he was terminated without
pre-termination or a post-termination conference in violation
of the Administrative Guide Book. The plaintiff admits that a
procedure is in place to address employment terminations,
however, he argues the procedure is wholly inadequate and
amounts to “no process at all.” He cites to
Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, 470 U.S.
532 (1985) as support for argument(s).
STANDARD FOR REVIEW RULE 12(B)(6)
12(b)(6) authorizes the dismissal of a claim for
“failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). In considering a
motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), a court may not look
beyond the face of the pleadings. Classroom Teachers of
Dallas v. Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist., 164 F.Supp.2d 839,
845 (N.D. Tex. 2001). Moreover, a district court must
liberally construe the allegations in the complaint in favor
of the plaintiff and must accept as true all well-pleaded
facts in the complaint. Lowrey v. Tex. A & M Univ.
Sys., 117 F.3d 242, 247 (5th Cir. 1997).
of a claim is improper unless it appears beyond doubt that
the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his
claim that would entitle him to relief. Collins v. Morgan
Stanley Dean Witter, 224 F.3d 496, 498 (5th Cir. 2000).
"A plaintiff, however, must plead specific facts, not
mere conclusory allegations, to avoid dismissal."
Classroom Teachers of Dallas, 164 F.Supp.2d at 845. "A
motion to dismiss under rule 12(b)(6) 'is viewed with
disfavor and is rarely granted.'" Collins,
224 F.3d at 498 (quoting Kaiser Aluminum & Chern.
Sales v. Avondale Shipyards, 677 F.2d 1045, 1050 (5th
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
Eleventh Amendment provides:
The Judicial power of the United States shall not be
construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced
or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of
another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign
U.S. Const. Amend. XI. The amendment recognizes that each
State is a sovereign entity in our federal system.
Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Fla., 116 S.Ct. 1114, 1122
(1996). As such, a State is immune from suit in federal court
regardless of whether the suit is based on diversity or
federal question jurisdiction and regardless of whether the
suit is filed against the State by one of its own citizens or
by a citizen of another State. Atascadero State Hosp. v.
Scanlon, 105 S.Ct. 3142, 3145 (1985); see also
Seminole Tribe, 116 S.Ct. at 1122.
immunity, however, is not absolute. Coll. Sav. Bank v.
Fla. Prepaid Postsecondary Educ. Expense Bd., 119 S.Ct.
2219, 2223 (1999). Under the Eleventh Amendment, a State may
be sued in federal court if the State expressly waives its
sovereign immunity, its immunity is properly abrogated by
Congress pursuant to § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, or
the suit falls within the exception recognized for certain
suits seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against state
officers in their individual capacities. Atascadero,
105 S.Ct. at 3145; Ex Parte Young, 28 S.Ct. 441, 454
(1908); Ysleta del Sur Pueblo v. Laney, 199 F.3d
281, 285 (5th Cir. 2000). "[B]ecause the Eleventh
Amendment implicates the fundamental constitutional balance