Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Joseph Anthony Reyna, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, sued the Texas Department of State Health Services over two Texas Senate bills that he alleged would ban certain hemp products. His operative complaint asserted that the proposed legislation violated the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and several provisions of the U.S. Constitution.
The district court dismissed the action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). It concluded that sovereign immunity deprived it of subject-matter jurisdiction over Reyna’s ADA and constitutional claims and separately dismissed his RFRA claim for failure to state a claim. On appeal, Reyna conceded that dismissal of the RFRA claim was proper.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Circuit held that Reyna had not shown error in the sovereign-immunity ruling. Tennessee v. Lane did not establish abrogation for his ADA claim because Lane concerned Title II cases implicating access to judicial services, while Reyna’s challenge involved proposed hemp legislation. Reyna cited no authority extending Lane to circumstances like his and therefore forfeited that argument.
The court also rejected Reyna’s request to treat his complaint as though it had named the Department’s commissioner under Ex parte Young. The operative complaint named only the state agency, and a pro se litigant cannot introduce a new theory of relief for the first time on appeal. The Fifth Circuit nevertheless held that the district court abused its discretion by dismissing the sovereign-immunity-barred claims with prejudice. It modified the judgment so the ADA and constitutional claims were dismissed without prejudice and affirmed the judgment as modified.
Key Takeaways
- Title II’s sovereign-immunity abrogation for cases involving access to judicial services did not extend to Reyna’s challenge to proposed hemp legislation.
- Ex parte Young did not apply because Reyna sued only the Texas agency and could not recast the action on appeal as one against its commissioner.
- A dismissal based on sovereign immunity must be without prejudice.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that plaintiffs seeking prospective relief from allegedly unlawful state action must identify a viable exception to sovereign immunity and name an appropriate state official when relying on Ex parte Young. Naming the state agency itself does not satisfy that doctrine.
It also confirms an important remedial distinction: when sovereign immunity eliminates federal jurisdiction, the resulting dismissal is without prejudice rather than an adjudication on the merits.