# Doe v. Texas Southern University

> District Court, S.D. Texas · December 21, 2020

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10673978

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, S.D. Texas
- **Decided:** December 21, 2020
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10673978

## Opinion text

: United States District Cot
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ERX ASistrict of Texas
SK —————ENFERED
December 23, 202C
Jane Doe, § David J. Bradley, Clerk
Plaintiff, §
§
§ Civil Action H-20-968
Texas Southern University,
Texas Southern University’s §
Board of Regents, Thurgood §
Marshall School of Law, §
Texas Southern University’s §
Department of Public Safety, §
Defendants. §

Order of Adoption

On November 16, 2020, Magistrate Judge Peter Bray
recommended that the court deny Doe’s motion for a temporary
restraining order. (36) Neither party filed objections. The court
adopts the memorandum and recommendation as its memorandum
and opinion.

Signed at Houston, Texas, on December Z ( , 2020.

Lynn N. Hughes
United States District Judge □

United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
November 16, 2020
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF-FEXAS™@Aley: Clerk

Jane Doe, §
Plaintiff, §
v. Civil Action H-20-968
Texas Southern University, ;
Texas Southern University’s §
Board of Regents, Thurgood §
Marshall School of Law, §
Texas Southern University’s §
Department of Public Safety, §
Defendants. §
Memorandum and Recommendation
~ Having heard oral arguments on Plaintiffs motion for a
temporary restraining order (TRO) (D.E. 30), the undersigned
recommends that the motion for TRO be denied.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants discriminated against her
based on disability, race, color, national origin, and gender “in the
form of exclusion, harassment and slurs” and subjected her to “limited
educational resources and assistance.” (D.E. 1 at 72-79.) She moves
for a TRO to prevent Defendants “from engaging in the
unconstitutional and illicit activities” described in her complaint. □
(D.E. 30 at 1.) Plaintiff seeks a reversal of grades, reinstatement as a
student at TSU, reinstatement as a scholarship recipient, and other
relief.
A party seeking a TRO must demonstrate: “(1) a substantial
likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a substantial threat that the
movant will suffer irreparable injury if the injunction is denied; (3)
that the threatened injury outweighs any damage that the injunction
might cause the defendant; and (4) that the injunction will not
disserve the public interest.” Greenway v. Wilkie, Civil Action No. H-
18-3776, 2018 WL 5921224, at *2 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 13, 2018) (quoting

Jackson Women’s Health Org. v. Currier, 760 F.3d 448, 452 (5% Cir.
2014)). TROs are “extraordinary remed[ies] which should not be
granted unless the party seeking [them] has clearly carried the burden
of persuasion on all four requirements.” Jd. (alterations in the
original) (quoting PCI Transp., Inc. v. Fort Worth & W. R.R. Co., 418
F.3d 535, 545 (5 Cir. 2005)).
Defendant TSU presented strong arguments that, as an arm of
the state, it and its separately named departments are shielded by
sovereign immunity. Plaintiff failed to show that either sovereign
immunity does not apply to her claims or Texas has waived its
sovereign immunity as to the claims raised. Absent surmounting that
obstacle, Plaintiff cannot establish a substantial likelihood of success
on the merits. Cf. Atakapa Indian de Creole Nation v. Louisiana,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 18-0190, 2019 WL 660558, at *1 (W.D. La. Jan.
11, 2019) (finding that the plaintiff showed no likelihood of success on
the merits because the court had previously determined that the
defendants had not waived sovereign immunity).
Plaintiff also failed to show potential irreparable injury. She has
not shown that an award of money damages, should she prevail,
would not adequately redress the harm she alleges. See Janvey v.
Alguire, 647 F.3d 585, 600 (5t Cir. 2011) (“In general, a harm is
irreparable where there is no adequate remedy at law, such as
monetary damages.”)
As Plaintiff failed to carry her burden of persuasion on either of
the first two elements, she has not shown that she is entitled to the
extraordinary remedy of a TRO. See Greenway, 2018 WL 5921224, at
*g (stating that the movant must prevail on all four TRO
requirements).

Signed at Houston, Texas, on November _16, 2020.

Peter Bray /
United States Magistrate Judge

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10673978. Public record. Not legal advice.