# Linda D. Tanner v. Texas Health and Human Services Commission, Julia Murray, Wendy Proctor, and Juan Rodriguez

> Texas Court of Appeals, 15th District · May 29, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11063001

## Case

- **Court:** Texas Court of Appeals, 15th District
- **Decided:** May 29, 2025
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **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/11063001

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that lack of knowledge of the six month’s filing requirement in worker’s compensation cases did not excuse the failure to file on time
- reaffirming that constitutional claims are subject to jurisdictional procedural requirements

## Opinion text

ACCEPTED
15-25-00008-CV
FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS
AUSTIN, TEXAS
5/29/2025 7:18 PM
No. 15-25-00008-CV CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE
CLERK
FILED IN
In the Fifteenth Court of Appeals, Austin, Texas
15th COURT OF APPEALS
AUSTIN, TEXAS
5/29/2025 7:18:27 PM
LINDA D. TANNER, CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE
Clerk
Appellant,
v.

TEXAS HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES COMMISSION, JULIA
MURRAY, WENDY PROCTOR, AND JUAN RODRIGUEZ
Appellees.

On Appeal from the 459th Judicial District Court of
Travis County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. D-1-GN-24-002987

BRIEF OF APPELLEES TEXAS HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
COMMISSION, JULIA MURRAY, WENDY PROCTOR, AND JUAN RODRIGUEZ

KEN PAXTON GRISELLE ORTIZ ASTACIO
Attorney General of Texas Texas State Bar No. 24103222
LAUREN MCGEE
BRENT WEBSTER State Bar No. 24128835
First Assistant Attorney General Assistant Attorneys General
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
RALPH MOLINA
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW DIVISION
Deputy First Assistant Attorney General
P.O. Box 12548, Capitol Station
AUSTIN KINGHORN Austin, Texas 78711-2548
Deputy Attorney General for Telephone: (512) 475-4200
Civil Litigation Griselle.OrtizAstacio@oag.texas.gov
Lauren.McGee@oag.texas.gov
ERNEST C. GARCIA
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES TEXAS HEALTH
Chief, Administrative Law Division
AND HUMAN SERVICES COMMISSION,
JULIA MURRAY, WENDY PROCTOR, AND
JUAN RODRIGUEZ
May 29, 2025
Oral Argument Not Requested
GLOSSARY
App. Br. [page] Appellant’s Brief [page no.]
CR [ page] Clerk’s Record
RR1 [ page]; [line no.] Reporter’s Record vol 1 Transcript
RR2 [page] Reporter’s Record vol 2 Administrative Record
Defendants or Appellees Texas Health and Human Services Commission,
Juan Rodriguez, Julia Murray, and Wendy Proctor
HHSC Defendant-Appellee Texas Health and Human
Services Commission
Ms. Tanner Plaintiff-Appellant Linda D. Tanner

BRIEF OF APPELLEES TEXAS HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES COMMISSION,
JULIA MURRAY, WENDY PROCTOR, AND JUAN RODRIGUEZ
Case No. 15-25-00008-CV ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS

GLOSSARY.............................................................................................................. II

TABLE OF CONTENTS .........................................................................................III
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES.....................................................................................V

STATEMENT OF THE CASE ............................................................................... IX

STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT ..............................................X

ISSUES PRESENTED..............................................................................................X
INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................1

STATEMENT OF FACTS ........................................................................................3
I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ......................................3

STANDARD OF REVIEW .......................................................................................7
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ........................................................................7

ARGUMENT ...........................................................................................................10
I. THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY DISMISSED THE CASE FOR
LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION BECAUSE MS.
TANNER FAILED TO TIMELY FILE HER PETITION FOR
JUDICIAL REVIEW. ................................................................................10

II. MS. TANNER’S ALLEGED FILING ERRORS DO NOT TOLL
THE STATUTORY DEADLINES. ..........................................................12

III. MS. TANNER’S CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIMS DO NOT
CONFER JURISDICTION OR STANDING ABSENT
STATUTORY COMPLIANCE.................................................................15

IV. MS. TANNER’S CLAIMS ARE BARRED BY SOVEREIGN
IMMUNITY. ..............................................................................................19
CONCLUSION & PRAYER ...................................................................................20

BRIEF OF APPELLEES TEXAS HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES COMMISSION,
JULIA MURRAY, WENDY PROCTOR, AND JUAN RODRIGUEZ
Case No. 15-25-00008-CV iii
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE .......................................................................23

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ................................................................................23

BRIEF OF APPELLEES TEXAS HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES COMMISSION,
JULIA MURRAY, WENDY PROCTOR, AND JUAN RODRIGUEZ
Case No. 15-25-00008-CV iv
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
Cases

Aguilar v. Texas Dep’t of Crim. Just.,
160 F.3d 1052 (5th Cir. 1998)...................................................................... 8
Allstate Insurance Co. v. King,
444 S.W.2d 602 (Tex. 1969) ..................................................................... 14
Bland Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Blue,
34 S.W.3d 547 (Tex. 2000) ......................................................................... 7

Castillo v. Texas Bd. of Pro. Eng'rs,
No. 03-10-00124-CV, 2010 WL 5129127 (Tex. App. Dec. 14, 2010) ............. 11

CenterPoint Energy Entex v. R.R. Comm’n of Tex.,
208 S.W.3d 608 (Tex. App.—Austin 2006, pet. dism’d) ............................... 17
City of Dall. v. Stewart,
361 S.W.3d 562 (Tex. 2012) ....................................................................... 9

City of Madisonville v. Sims,
620 S.W.3d 375 (Tex. 2020) (per curiam) ................................................... 10

Dyer v. Texas Comm’n on Env’t Quality,
646 S.W.3d 498 (Tex. 2022) ..................................................................... 17

Eastland Cnty. Co-op. Dispatch v. Poyner,
64 S.W.3d 182 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2001, pet. denied) .............................. 20
Furr v. Furr,
721 S.W.2d 565 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1986, no writ) ................................. 14

Gonzalez v. Tex. Med. Bd.,
No. 03-22-00205-CV, 2023 WL 7134982 (Tex. App.—Austin Oct. 31,
2023, pet. filed) (mem. op.) ....................................................................... 10
Graham v. Connor,
490 U.S. 386 (1989) ................................................................................... 8

Hammack v. Pub. Util. Comm’n of Tex.,

BRIEF OF APPELLEES TEXAS HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES COMMISSION,
JULIA MURRAY, WENDY PROCTOR, AND JUAN RODRIGUEZ
Case No. 15-25-00008-CV v
131 S.W.3d 713 (Tex. App.—Austin 2004, pet. denied) ............................... 17

In re Sw. Bell Tel. Co., L.P.,
226 S.W.3d 400 (Tex. 2007) ..................................................................... 17

John Gannon, Inc. v. Tex. Dep’t of Transp.,
No. 01-22-00762-CV, 2024 WL 1513875 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.]
Apr. 9, 2024, pet. denied) (mem. op.) ........................................................... 9
Meyers v. JDC/Firethorne, Ltd.,
548 S.W.3d 477 (Tex. 2018) ..................................................................... 16

Nazari v. State,
561 S.W.3d 495 (Tex. 2018) ..................................................................... 20

Nevarez L. Firm, P.C. v. Inv. Land Servs., L.L.C.,
610 S.W.3d 567 (Tex. App. (El Paso—2020), opinion after reinstatement
of appeal sub nom. Nevarez L. Firm, PC v. Inv. Land Servs., LLC, 645
S.W.3d 870 (Tex. App. El Paso—2022, no pet.) .......................................... 13
Nguyen v. Kim,
3 S.W.3d 146 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.) ..................... 14

Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman,
465 U.S. 89 (1984) ..................................................................................... 8
Perez v. Physician Assistant Bd.
No. 03-16-00732-CV, 2017 WL 5078003 (Tex. App. Oct. 31, 2017)............. 11
PHI, Inc. v. Tex. Juvenile Justice Dept.,
593 S.W.3d 296 (Tex. 2019) ..................................................................... 19
Prairie View A&M Univ. v. Chatha,
381 S.W.3d 500 (Tex. 2012) ..................................................................... 10
Quern v. Jordan,
440 U.S. 332 (1979) ................................................................................... 8

Quick v. City of Austin,
7 S.W.3d 109 (Tex. 1998) ........................................................................... 7

Tex. Ass'n of Long Distance Tel. Companies (TEXALTEL) v. Pub. Util.
BRIEF OF APPELLEES TEXAS HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES COMMISSION,
JULIA MURRAY, WENDY PROCTOR, AND JUAN RODRIGUEZ
Case No. 15-25-00008-CV vi
Comm’n of Tex.,
798 S.W.2d 875 (Tex. App.—Austin 1990, writ denied) ............................... 17

Tex. Comm’n on Env’t Quality v. Kelsoe,
286 S.W.3d 91 (Tex. App.—Austin 2009, pet. denied) ............................... 7, 9

Tex. Dep’t of Transp. v. A.P.I. Pipe & Supply, LLC,
397 S.W.3d 162 (Tex. 2013) ....................................................................... 7
Texas Dep't of Transp. v. Sefzik,
355 S.W.3d 618 (Tex. 2011) ....................................................................... 9
West Columbia Nat’l Bank v. Griffith,
902 S.W.2d 201 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1995, writ denied) ............. 14

Rules

1 Tex. Adm. Code § 357.3(b)(2) ..................................................................... 3

Statutes

Tex. Gov’t Code § 311.034 ................................................................ 9, 10, 19

Tex. Gov’t Code § 531.0055(b)(4)(G)............................................................ 17

Tex. Gov’t Code § 531.019 .......................................................................... 19

Tex. Gov’t Code § 531.019(g) ...................................................................... 14

Tex. Gov’t Code §§ 2001.171—.178 ............................................................. 19

Tex. Gov’t Code § 2001.171(2)..................................................................... 19

Tex. Gov’t Code § 2001.174(2)(A).............................................................. 7, 9

Tex. Gov’t Code § 2001.176(a) ..................................................................... 14

Other Authorities

Judicial Branch Technology Standards Version 8.0 at 19-20, Office of Court
Administration (February 2024),
https://web.archive.org/web/20240518105720/https://www.txcourts.gov/
media/1435816/technology-standards.pdf ................................................... 13
BRIEF OF APPELLEES TEXAS HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES COMMISSION,
JULIA MURRAY, WENDY PROCTOR, AND JUAN RODRIGUEZ
Case No. 15-25-00008-CV vii
TANF Cash Help,
https://www.hhs.texas.gov/services/financial/cash/tanf-cash-help (last
visited May 9, 2025)................................................................................... 1

BRIEF OF APPELLEES TEXAS HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES COMMISSION,
JULIA MURRAY, WENDY PROCTOR, AND JUAN RODRIGUEZ
Case No. 15-25-00008-CV viii
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Nature of the Case Ms. Tanner filed suit seeking judicial review of the Health
and Human Services Commission’s (HHSC) decision to
deny her Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
(TANF) benefits. Ms. Tanner alleged violations of
constitutional due process and equal protection. Ms.
Tanner failed to meet the statutory requirements of Tex.
Government Code Sections 531.019(g) and 2001.176(a)
for seeking judicial review of HHSC’s decision. After a
hearing, the trial court granted the Defendants’ Plea to the
Jurisdiction, with prejudice.
Trial Court The Honorable Judge Laurie Eiserloh, presiding in the
455th Judicial District Court of Travis County, Texas.
Trial Court’s The Court entered a final order granting Defendants’
Disposition Plea to the Jurisdiction on January 24, 2025.

BRIEF OF APPELLEES TEXAS HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES COMMISSION,
JULIA MURRAY, WENDY PROCTOR, AND JUAN RODRIGUEZ
Case No. 15-25-00008-CV ix
STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT
Appellees do not request oral argument but seek permission to participate in

oral argument if granted by the Court.

ISSUES PRESENTED
1. Whether the trial court properly dismissed Ms. Tanner’s suit for judicial

review due to a lack of subject matter jurisdiction, given that she failed to file her

petition within the 30-day statutory deadline under Texas Government Code

Sections 531.019(g) and 2001.176(a).

2. Whether Ms. Tanner’s due process and equal protection claims were sufficient

to establish subject matter jurisdiction and standing despite her failure to comply

with statutory prerequisites for judicial review.

BRIEF OF APPELLEES TEXAS HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES COMMISSION,
JULIA MURRAY, WENDY PROCTOR, AND JUAN RODRIGUEZ
Case No. 15-25-00008-CV x
INTRODUCTION
This appeal arises from the trial court’s dismissal of Ms. Tanner’s suit seeking

judicial review of the Texas Health and Human Services Commission’s (HHSC)

final decision denying her application for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families

(TANF) benefits. TANF is a state-administered program designed to provide limited

cash assistance to low-income families based on statutory eligibility criteria,

including income limits, deductions, and standardized budgetary assessments. 1

HHSC determined that Ms. Tanner did not qualify for benefits under HHSC rules

and issued a final decision denying her application on February 29, 2024. RR2

000227.

Judicial review of the HHSC’s final decision is available if requested within

30 days under Texas Government Code Sections 531.019(g) and 2001.176(a).

However, Ms. Tanner filed her Petition for Judicial Review on May 13, 2024, well

after the jurisdictional deadline. CR 5-116. HHSC responded by filing its Plea to the

Jurisdiction, asserting sovereign immunity. CR 275-289. The trial court granted

HHSC’s Plea to the Jurisdiction, finding that the suit was untimely and that Ms.

Tanner failed to meet the statutory prerequisites to invoke subject matter jurisdiction.

RR1 16: 5-25; 17: 1-16.

1TANF Cash Help, https://www.hhs.texas.gov/services/financial/cash/tanf-cash-help (last visited May 9, 2025).

BRIEF OF APPELLEES TEXAS HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES COMMISSION,
JULIA MURRAY, WENDY PROCTOR, AND JUAN RODRIGUEZ
Case No. 15-25-00008-CV Page 1 of 23
On appeal, Ms. Tanner contends that her constitutional due process and equal

protection rights, along with her circumstances of homelessness and financial

hardship, excuse her failure to comply with the statutory deadline. App. Br. 13-14.

She further alleges that HHSC used incorrect grant calculations, failed to update its

rules to reflect current poverty guidelines, and disregarded applicable legal

provisions during the administrative process. The relief she seeks includes an order

directing HHSC to amend its rules, revise eligibility standards, and extend benefits

to qualified applicants. App. Br. 5, 9, 10, 12, 13,14.

Ms. Tanner’s claims do not establish subject matter jurisdiction or standing.

Texas law requires strict compliance with statutory prerequisites to suit, including

jurisdictional deadlines, even when constitutional claims are raised, and courts lack

the authority to waive these requirements or to grant the policy-based relief Ms.

Tanner seeks. The authority to adopt and revise eligibility rules lies solely in HHSC,

not the judiciary. Because Ms. Tanner’s petition was untimely filed and her claims

are not redressable through judicial review, the trial court properly dismissed her suit

with prejudice.

Ms. Tanner also incorrectly asserts that sovereign immunity is waived under

42 U.S.C. Section 1983. App. Br. 14.2 However, Section 1983 does not provide a

2
42 U.S.C.§ 1983, a pivotal legislation known as the Civil Rights Act of 1871, provides a cause
of action to individuals whose constitutional rights have been violated by someone acting under
BRIEF OF APPELLEES TEXAS HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES COMMISSION,
JULIA MURRAY, WENDY PROCTOR, AND JUAN RODRIGUEZ
Case No. 15-25-00008-CV Page 2 of 23
general waiver of sovereign immunity for state agencies or state officials sued in

their official capacities. Her reliance on that statute is misplaced and does not

overcome the jurisdictional bar. In the absence of a clear and unambiguous waiver

of immunity by the legislature, HHSC and its officials remain immune from suit.

STATEMENT OF FACTS
I. Facts and Procedural Background
Ms. Tanner filed a suit for judicial review of HHSC’s decision denying her

application for TANF benefits. CR 5-116. In her petition, she alleges violations of

constitutional due process, equal protection, and claims that HHSC has mismanaged

the TANF program. CR 17,18,19. She also contends that HHSC officials ignored

statements of fact that were submitted during the administrative proceedings. CR

21-22, 39.

On July 31, 2023, Ms. Tanner signed an application for TANF benefits, which

was received by HHSC on August 18, 2023. RR2 000011-000032. HHSC denied

Ms. Tanner’s TANF application on October 2, 2023. RR2 000010. An individual

has a right to appeal an HHSC adverse action “within 90 days from, the date on the

notice of agency action[.]” 1 Tex. Adm. Code § 357.3(b)(2); see also RR2 000173.

Ms. Tanner timely appealed the denial on November 2, 2023, and requested a Fair

the color of state law. However, even though Ms. Tanner asserted this claim, this is not an issue at
appeal; this Appeal is strictly addressing subject matter jurisdiction.
BRIEF OF APPELLEES TEXAS HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES COMMISSION,
JULIA MURRAY, WENDY PROCTOR, AND JUAN RODRIGUEZ
Case No. 15-25-00008-CV Page 3 of 23
Hearing. RR2 000001-000003.

A hearing was conducted over two days, on December 6, 2023, and January

17, 2024, before Fair Hearing Officer Juan Rodriguez. RR2 000228-000288. On

January 25, 2024, Fair Hearing Officer Rodriguez signed and issued an Order

upholding HHSC’s decision to deny Ms. Tanner’s TANF application. RR2 000211-

00217. The decision found that: (1) Ms. Tanner receives $534.70 in monthly child

support; (2) Ms. Tanner was properly given a $75.00 child support disregard

deduction; (3) Ms. Tanner’s adjusted income was $459.70; and (4) pursuant to the

recognizable needs test, $459.70 exceeds the TANF income limit of $188.00 for a

one-parent, three-person household. RR2 000216. The decision also informed Ms.

Tanner that she could request a procedural or administrative review within 30 days

from the date of the Order. RR2 000211-000212.

On February 15, 2024, Ms. Tanner requested a “procedural and administrative

review” of the Order issued by Fair Hearing Officer Rodriguez. RR2 000218-00226.

On February 29, 2024, Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) Julia Murray, after

reviewing all the facts and applicable rules and policies, upheld HHSC’s final

decision. RR2 000227. Ms. Tanner was advised that she could request judicial

review in the District Court of Travis County within 30 days from the date of ALJ

Murray’s decision. Accordingly, she had until March 30, 2024, to file her Petition

for Judicial Review.

BRIEF OF APPELLEES TEXAS HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES COMMISSION,
JULIA MURRAY, WENDY PROCTOR, AND JUAN RODRIGUEZ
Case No. 15-25-00008-CV Page 4 of 23
On May 13, 2024, Ms. Tanner filed her petition with the Travis County

District Court. CR 5-116. Her Petition was filed more than 70 days after the February

29, 2024, administrative decision. RR1 13:18-21.

Defendants filed a Plea to the Jurisdiction (“Plea”) on December 6, 2024,

arguing, among other things, that Ms. Tanner’s suit for judicial review was barred

as untimely. CR 275-289. Ms. Tanner filed her opposition to the Plea on December

9, 2024. CR 333-365. A hearing on the Plea was held on January 23, 2025, and the

Court granted the Plea. RR1 17: 9-16. That same day, Ms. Tanner filed a Motion to

Reinstate. CR 382-511.

The next day, on January 24, 2025, the Court entered a final order granting

the Plea and dismissing the case with prejudice. CR 512. Ms. Tanner filed a Motion

for Reconsideration on January 28, 2025, raising the same arguments as her Motion

to Reinstate. CR 520-650. Ms. Tanner asserted for the first time after the Plea hearing

that she filed her Petition for Judicial Review on March 29, 2024, but said petition

was not accepted by the e-filing system until May 13, 2024. Ms. Tanner claims that

the discrepancy between the actual filing date and the file-stamp date by the clerk

justifies reopening the case. CR 521. Defendants filed their opposition to Ms.

Tanner’s Motion for Reconsideration on February 4, 2025. CR 654-664.

Ms. Tanner filed a Notice of Appeal in the trial court on January 29, 2025,

and the appeal was docketed on February 3, 2025. CR 651-653. After this Court

BRIEF OF APPELLEES TEXAS HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES COMMISSION,
JULIA MURRAY, WENDY PROCTOR, AND JUAN RODRIGUEZ
Case No. 15-25-00008-CV Page 5 of 23
granted unopposed motions for extension, each party filed its appellate brief, Ms.

Tanner on April 15, 2025, and Appellees on the date indicated below.

BRIEF OF APPELLEES TEXAS HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES COMMISSION,
JULIA MURRAY, WENDY PROCTOR, AND JUAN RODRIGUEZ
Case No. 15-25-00008-CV Page 6 of 23
STANDARD OF REVIEW
A trial court’s ruling on a plea to the jurisdiction is reviewed de novo. Tex.

Dep’t of Transp. v. A.P.I. Pipe & Supply, LLC, 397 S.W.3d 162, 166 (Tex. 2013).

Under de novo review, the appellate court exercises its own judgment to decide the

legal issues presented, without deference to the trial court’s ruling. Quick v. City of

Austin, 7 S.W.3d 109, 116 (Tex. 1998). In resolving a plea to the jurisdiction, a court

may consider evidence submitted by the parties and must do so when necessary to

determine jurisdictional facts. Bland Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Blue, 34 S.W.3d 547, 555

(Tex. 2000).

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
The trial court correctly dismissed Ms. Tanner’s suit for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction because she failed to comply with the statutory deadline for seeking

judicial review. RR1 17: 9-14. Under Texas Government Code Sections 531.019(g)

and 2001.176(a), a petition for judicial review must be filed in Travis County within

30 days of the agency’s final decision. Ms. Tanner did not meet this jurisdictional

requirement, and Texas law mandates strict compliance with statutory prerequisites

to suit. Courts lack discretion to waive these

321 deadlines, even where constitutional claims are asserted. Tex. Comm’n on

Env’t ;Quality v. Kelsoe, 286 S.W.3d 91, 97 (Tex. App.—Austin 2009, pet. denied);

Tex. Gov’t Code § 2001.174(2)(A).
BRIEF OF APPELLEES TEXAS HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES COMMISSION,
JULIA MURRAY, WENDY PROCTOR, AND JUAN RODRIGUEZ
Case No. 15-25-00008-CV Page 7 of 23
Ms. Tanner’s due process and equal protection arguments neither cure the

jurisdictional defect nor do they establish standing. These constitutional claims do

not override the statutory limitations imposed by the Legislature, nor do they provide

an independent basis for jurisdiction where the underlying suit is untimely.

Additionally, the relief Ms. Tanner seeks, including changes to agency rules and

eligibility determinations, is not redressable by the courts.

Further, Ms. Tanner’s claims are barred by sovereign immunity. HHSC is a

state agency, and no statute clearly and unambiguously waives its immunity in this

context. Ms. Tanner’s reliance on 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 is misplaced, as that

provision does not create an independent waiver of sovereign immunity or cause of

action. “[Section] 1983 ‘is not itself a source of substantive rights,’ but merely

provides ‘a method for vindicating federal rights elsewhere conferred.’” Graham v.

Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 393-94 (1989) (quoting Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137,

144 n.3 (1979)). “[A] suit in which the State or one of its agencies or departments

is named as the defendant is proscribed by the Eleventh Amendment.” Pennhurst

State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100 (1984). “Section 1983 does not

abrogate the states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity.” Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S.

332, 340 (1979); Aguilar v. Texas Dep’t of Crim. Just., 160 F.3d 1052, 1054 (5th

Cir. 1998) (“The Eleventh Amendment bars claims against a state brought pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.”).

BRIEF OF APPELLEES TEXAS HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES COMMISSION,
JULIA MURRAY, WENDY PROCTOR, AND JUAN RODRIGUEZ
Case No. 15-25-00008-CV Page 8 of 23
To the extent Ms. Tanner raises constitutional claims, those claims must still

be asserted within the statutory framework governing judicial review. Allegations of

constitutional violations do not relieve a party of the obligation to comply with

jurisdictional filing deadlines. Texas courts have consistently held that a party cannot

avoid statutory jurisdictional prerequisites merely by asserting constitutional

violations. See Tex. Comm’n on Env’t Quality v. Kelsoe, 286 S.W.3d 91, 97 (Tex.

App.—Austin 2009, pet. denied); Tex. Gov’t Code § 2001.174(2)(A); cf. City of

Dall. v. Stewart, 361 S.W.3d 562, 579–80 (Tex. 2012) (reaffirming that

constitutional claims are subject to jurisdictional procedural requirements); John

Gannon, Inc. v. Tex. Dep’t of Transp., No. 01-22-00762-CV, 2024 WL 1513875, at

*5 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Apr. 9, 2024, pet. denied) (mem. op.).

Moreover, the APA provides a limited waiver to sovereign immunity for

alleged constitutional violations when the claims are properly brought under that

Act. See Texas Dep't of Transp. v. Sefzik, 355 S.W.3d 618, 620- 621 (Tex. 2011).

Statutory prerequisites to suit, including timely filing, are jurisdictional and must be

strictly followed. See Tex. Gov’t Code § 311.034. As explained by the court in John

Gannon, Inc. v. Tex. Dep’t of Transp., No. CV H-21-3190, 2025 WL 1179874, at *6

(S.D. Tex. Apr. 23, 2025), the Texas Supreme Court has made clear that “statutory

prerequisites to suit (such as timely filing a lawsuit) are jurisdictional when a

defendant is a governmental entity.” See also City of Madisonville v. Sims, 620

BRIEF OF APPELLEES TEXAS HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES COMMISSION,
JULIA MURRAY, WENDY PROCTOR, AND JUAN RODRIGUEZ
Case No. 15-25-00008-CV Page 9 of 23
S.W.3d 375, 380 (Tex. 2020) (per curiam); Prairie View A&M Univ. v. Chatha, 381

S.W.3d 500, 515 (Tex. 2012); Tex. Gov’t Code § 311.034.

Likewise, Section 2001.176(a) requires that a petition for judicial review of

an administrative decision be filed “not later than the 30th day after the date the

decision … is final and appealable.” See also Gonzalez v. Tex. Med. Bd., No. 03-22-

00205-CV, 2023 WL 7134982, at *6 (Tex. App.—Austin Oct. 31, 2023, pet. filed)

(mem. op.) (holding the 30-day filing deadline is a jurisdictional prerequisite for

judicial review under Section 2001.171). Failure to satisfy these statutory

requirements deprives a trial court of subject matter jurisdiction. Because Ms.

Tanner’s state court action was not filed within the statutory deadline, it was properly

dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, and the trial court’s ruling should be affirmed.

ARGUMENT
I. The trial court properly dismissed the case for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction because Ms. Tanner failed to timely file her
Petition for Judicial Review.
Ms. Tanner argues that the trial court erroneously dismissed the case for lack

of jurisdiction, claiming that her homelessness and pending eviction prevented her

from timely initiating her suit for judicial review. App. Br. 13-14. She asserts that

strict enforcement of the statutory deadline under Texas Government Code Sections

531.019(g) and 2001.176(a) improperly denied her access to judicial review, given

her lack of resources. App. Br. 13-14.
BRIEF OF APPELLEES TEXAS HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES COMMISSION,
JULIA MURRAY, WENDY PROCTOR, AND JUAN RODRIGUEZ
Case No. 15-25-00008-CV Page 10 of 23
Ms. Tanner also asserts that she filed her Petition for Judicial Review in a

timely manner but was unprepared to present evidence of timely filing at the hearing.

App. Br. 13-14. Specifically, she argues that her suit for judicial review was

submitted on March 29, 2024, but was not accepted by the e-filing system until May

13, 2024. App. Br. 13.

While Ms. Tanner raises equitable arguments, it is well established that “[i]n

suits against governmental entities, a timely filed petition for judicial review is a

statutory prerequisite to suit, so that failure to comply deprives the trial court of

jurisdiction to review the agency decision.” Perez v. Physician Assistant Bd., No.

03-16-00732-CV, 2017 WL 5078003, at *3 (Tex. App. Oct. 31, 2017); Castillo v.

Texas Bd. of Pro. Eng'rs, No. 03-10-00124-CV, 2010 WL 5129127, at *3 (Tex. App.

Dec. 14, 2010). Texas Government Code Section 2001.176 requires that a person

initiate judicial review in a contested case by filing a petition not later than the 30th

day after the date the decision or order that is the subject of a complaint is final and

appealable.

In this case, the letter dated February 29, 2024, from Administrative Law

Judge Julia Murray affirming the ruling of Fair Hearings Officer Rodriguez, clearly

informed Ms. Tanner that she had 30 days to file an appeal to the District Court of

Travis County. RR2 000227.

Ms. Tanner alleges that she did not receive the ruling until March 19, 2024.

BRIEF OF APPELLEES TEXAS HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES COMMISSION,
JULIA MURRAY, WENDY PROCTOR, AND JUAN RODRIGUEZ
Case No. 15-25-00008-CV Page 11 of 23
CR 15; RR1 13: 5-9, 18-21. Even if the Court were to accept Ms. Tanner’s claim

that she received the decision on March 19, 2024, her May 13, 2024, filing remains

untimely, having been filed 50 days after she purportedly received the decision. RR1

7:16-18; CR-5-116; CR 15; RR1 13: 5-9, 18-21.

II. Ms. Tanner’s Alleged Filing Errors Do Not Toll the Statutory
Deadlines.
Ms. Tanner argues that her petition was filed on March 29, 2024, but was not

officially accepted until May 13, 2024, and she claims that the discrepancy between

the actual filing date and the file-stamp date justifies reopening the case. CR 520-

521. Ms. Tanner’s argument fails because there is no newly discovered evidence, or

legal basis, that warrants extending the statutory deadline.

Ms. Tanner argues her Petition for Judicial Review was filed on March 29,

2024, and assigned Envelope Number 86119447. CR 524. However, the filing was

rejected by the clerk on April 2, 2024, with instructions and a phone number that

Ms. Tanner could call if she had questions. CR 526.

The Texas Judicial Branch established its Technology Standards Version 9,

which explains that when a clerk returns a filing for correction, the filer has 72 hours

to resubmit the corrected document to maintain the original file-stamp date. If a

corrected document is resubmitted after the 72-hour period, it will receive a new

filing date corresponding to the resubmission. See Judicial Branch Technology

BRIEF OF APPELLEES TEXAS HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES COMMISSION,
JULIA MURRAY, WENDY PROCTOR, AND JUAN RODRIGUEZ
Case No. 15-25-00008-CV Page 12 of 23
Standards Version 8.0 at 19-20, Office of Court Administration (February 2024),

https://web.archive.org/web/20240518105720/https://www.txcourts.gov/media/143

5816/technology-standards.pdf.

The Texas Court of Appeals has also addressed the timing of electronic

filings, holding that a document is considered filed at the time of electronic

transmission, provided the filer complies with the clerk’s instructions for correction

within the deadline. Nevarez L. Firm, P.C. v. Inv. Land Servs., L.L.C., 610 S.W.3d

567, 570–71 (Tex. App. (El Paso—2020), opinion after reinstatement of appeal sub

nom. Nevarez L. Firm, PC v. Inv. Land Servs., LLC, 645 S.W.3d 870 (Tex. App. El

Paso—2022, no pet.).

Ms. Tanner failed to correct and resubmit the filing within the 72-hour time

period. Because Ms. Tanner did not correct her initial filing in time, her later

submission is treated as a new filing, not a continuation of the original filing.

Ms. Tanner did not correct her filing until May 13, 2024, when she refiled the

petition. CR 528. The 41-day lapse between the return of the first filing and the

second filing resulted in the first filing being stricken. The second filing was

accepted and was the operative pleading. CR 526, 533.

Ms. Tanner’s failure to meet the filing deadline was due to a lack of diligence,

not external factors or procedural irregularities. The burden is on the party bringing

suit to ensure the suit is filed properly. Here, Ms. Tanner filed her petition on May

BRIEF OF APPELLEES TEXAS HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES COMMISSION,
JULIA MURRAY, WENDY PROCTOR, AND JUAN RODRIGUEZ
Case No. 15-25-00008-CV Page 13 of 23
13, 2024, which was after the deadline to file a suit for judicial review. See CR 535;

RR2 000227; Tex. Gov’t Code §§ 531.019(g), 2001.176(a). Ms. Tanner has failed

to establish that her failure to file properly and her 41-day delay in resubmitting a

correct filing are justified or warrant a reopening of the case. Texas courts have long

held that ignorance or unawareness of a statutory requirement does not excuse a

party from missing a deadline. See Nguyen v. Kim, 3 S.W.3d 146, 154 (Tex. App.—

Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.) (holding that ignorance of a statutory deadline

does not excuse untimely compliance); Allstate Insurance Co. v. King, 444 S.W.2d

602, 605 (Tex. 1969) (holding that lack of knowledge of the six month’s filing

requirement in worker’s compensation cases did not excuse the failure to file on

time); West Columbia Nat’l Bank v. Griffith, 902 S.W.2d 201, 207–08 (Tex. App.—

Houston [1st Dist.] 1995, writ denied) (holding that a misinterpretation of the law

does not justify failure to answer a lawsuit); Furr v. Furr, 721 S.W.2d 565, 566 (Tex.

App.—Amarillo 1986, no writ) (holding that a pro se litigant’s unfamiliarity with

appellate procedure does not constitute a “reasonable explanation” for missing a

deadline).

Furthermore, Ms. Tanner admits that, apart from filing untimely, she was

unprepared to present evidence at the hearing. CR 520-521. This is not a valid basis

to overturn a dismissal. The rules of procedure exist to ensure fairness and efficiency,

and ignorance of deadlines or procedural requirements does not excuse

BRIEF OF APPELLEES TEXAS HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES COMMISSION,
JULIA MURRAY, WENDY PROCTOR, AND JUAN RODRIGUEZ
Case No. 15-25-00008-CV Page 14 of 23
noncompliance.

III. Ms. Tanner’s constitutional claims do not confer jurisdiction
or standing absent statutory compliance.
The trial court correctly dismissed Ms. Tanner’s suit for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction without reaching the merits of her claims. RR1 15: 17-25; 16: 1-25; 17:

1-14. Although Ms. Tanner frames her allegations in constitutional terms, her claims

are barred as a matter of law because she failed to comply with statutory

prerequisites for judicial review under the APA, and the relief she seeks is not

redressable by the courts. Ms. Tanner argues that she has standing to assert her

constitutional claims because she was wrongfully denied TANF benefits due to

Defendant Appellees’ alleged negligence. RR1 15: 1-15. Specifically, Ms. Tanner

contends: 1) HHSC applied incorrect grant computations for TANF eligibility; 2)

HHSC failed to update the maximum grant amounts for the TANF program in

accordance with the annual Federal Poverty Level (FPL) guidelines resulting in

outdated benefits calculations; 3) HHSC did not update the Texas Administrative

Code provisions governing budgetary needs and recognizable amounts for TANF;

4) HHSC failed to apply 42 U.S.C. Section 1382(a), thereby violating Plaintiff’s

constitutional rights during the Fair Hearing process; 5) HHSC violated Ms.

Tanner’s constitutional rights to due process and equal protection; and 6) Fair

Hearings Officer Juan Rodriguez, Fair Hearings Director Wendy Proctor, and

BRIEF OF APPELLEES TEXAS HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES COMMISSION,
JULIA MURRAY, WENDY PROCTOR, AND JUAN RODRIGUEZ
Case No. 15-25-00008-CV Page 15 of 23
Administrative Law Judge Julia Murray, ignored factual statements provided by

Plaintiff and disregarded 1 Texas Administrative Code Chapter 372, 42 U.S.C.

Section 1382(A) and 45 C.F.R. Section 205.10. CR 13-21.

These allegations do not provide a basis for subject matter jurisdiction in an

untimely filed petition for judicial review. Courts do not have the authority to hear

untimely claims, and Texas law strictly requires compliance with jurisdictional

deadlines. Under Texas Government Code Sections 531.019(g) and 2001.176(a), a

petition for judicial review must be filed within 30 days of the agency’s final

decision. Ms. Tanner did not meet this deadline.

Moreover, even if the petition had been timely filed, the relief Ms. Tanner

seeks is not available through judicial review. In Texas, the standing doctrine

requires a concrete injury to the plaintiff and a real controversy between the parties

that will be resolved by the court. Meyers v. JDC/Firethorne, Ltd., 548 S.W.3d 477,

484 (Tex. 2018). Ms. Tanner seeks remedies such as: (1) updating the Texas

Administrative Code to reflect the correct annual Federal Poverty Guidelines, (2)

modifying the Budgetary Needs and Recognizable Needs tables; (3) applying 42

U.S.C. Section 1382a when determining eligibility for TANF-Cash Help applicants;

(4) ensuring all eligible applicants receive all benefits they are entitled to and eligible

for; and (5) ordering equal and fair treatment by HHSC and the U.S. Department of

Health and Human Services. However, none of these remedies are available in suit

BRIEF OF APPELLEES TEXAS HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES COMMISSION,
JULIA MURRAY, WENDY PROCTOR, AND JUAN RODRIGUEZ
Case No. 15-25-00008-CV Page 16 of 23
for judicial review, which is limited to reversing or upholding agency decisions and

orders. Dyer v. Texas Comm’n on Env’t Quality, 646 S.W.3d 498, 514 (Tex. 2022).

Ms. Tanner seeks judicial review challenging HHSC’s rules for TANF

eligibility. However, the rulemaking power is exclusively delegated to

administrative agencies under Texas Government Code Sections 2001.021–.041.

The Texas Legislature assigned HHSC, not the courts, the responsibility for

establishing eligibility criteria for TANF. See Tex. Gov’t Code § 531.0055(b)(4)(G),

(e). The Texas Supreme Court has consistently held that courts may not override

agency discretion or impose regulatory changes. In re Sw. Bell Tel. Co., L.P., 226

S.W.3d 400 (Tex. 2007); CenterPoint Energy Entex v. R.R. Comm’n of Tex., 208

S.W.3d 608 (Tex. App.—Austin 2006, pet. dism’d); Hammack v. Pub. Util. Comm’n

of Tex., 131 S.W.3d 713, 723 (Tex. App.—Austin 2004, pet. denied); Tex. Ass'n of

Long Distance Tel. Companies (TEXALTEL) v. Pub. Util. Comm’n of Tex., 798

S.W.2d 875 (Tex. App.—Austin 1990, writ denied).

Further, Ms. Tanner’s due process allegations are unsupported by the record.

HHSC adhered to all constitutional due process requirements by providing Ms.

Tanner with adequate notice, the opportunity to present evidence, a fair hearing

before an impartial fair hearings officer, and a comprehensive review of the

submitted evidence. The record reflects that on October 2, 2023, Ms. Tanner was

informed of the denial of her TANF application. RR2 000010. Dissatisfied with this

BRIEF OF APPELLEES TEXAS HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES COMMISSION,
JULIA MURRAY, WENDY PROCTOR, AND JUAN RODRIGUEZ
Case No. 15-25-00008-CV Page 17 of 23
decision, Ms. Tanner exercised her right to appeal and filed a request for review

before a hearing officer on November 2, 2023. RR2 000001-000003.

HHSC promptly mailed notice of the scheduled hearing on November 6, 2023.

RR2 000073-00090. The hearing was conducted on December 6, 2023, and January

17, 2024. RR2 000228-000288. The hearing record remained open to permit Ms.

Tanner additional opportunity to submit additional evidence, if necessary, for the

hearing officer’s consideration. RR2 000254-00256. This detailed procedural

approach underscores that HHSC fulfilled its due process obligations under state and

federal law. Ms. Tanner’s allegations that the agency violated her constitutional

rights to due process, ignored her evidence, and failed to comply with statutory

obligations under 1 Texas Administrative Code Chapter 372, 42 U.S.C. Section

1382, and 45 C.F.R. Section 205.10 are without merit.

Chapter 372 of the Texas Administrative Code, Title 1 outlines the procedures

and requirements for determining TANF eligibility, including income assessments

and permissible deductions. Ms. Tanner’s reliance on 42 U.S.C. Section 1382, which

pertains to Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits and not TANF, is misplaced

and constitutes a misunderstanding of the applicable laws.

Because Ms. Tanner’s claims were filed untimely, raised non-justiciable

issues, and sought relief only the agency can provide, the trial court correctly

declined to reach the merits and dismissed her Petition for Judicial Review due to

BRIEF OF APPELLEES TEXAS HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES COMMISSION,
JULIA MURRAY, WENDY PROCTOR, AND JUAN RODRIGUEZ
Case No. 15-25-00008-CV Page 18 of 23
lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Therefore, the court correctly dismissed with

prejudice and without the opportunity to replead because the defects in Ms. Tanner’s

petition cannot be cured. She filed her suit late, and all the claims she raised were

subject to the 30-day statutory filing deadline. See Tex. Gov’t Code § 2001.171(2).

IV. Ms. Tanner’s claims are barred by sovereign immunity.
Ms. Tanner’s claims are barred by the doctrines of sovereign immunity

because she failed to follow the jurisdictional statutory prerequisites of the APA and

of Texas Government Code Section 531.019. In light of her failure to establish

jurisdiction under those two statutes, Ms. Tanner has not identified any other statute

or legal basis to find waiver of HHSC’s sovereign immunity.

Sovereign immunity shields the state and its agencies from lawsuits unless the

Legislature has clearly and unambiguously waived that immunity. PHI, Inc. v. Tex.

Juvenile Justice Dept., 593 S.W.3d 296, 303 (Tex. 2019). No general waiver of

sovereign immunity exists here. Subchapter G of the Administrative Procedure Act

(APA) and Texas Government Code Section 531.019 provide a limited waiver of

sovereign immunity, limited to suits filed in compliance with the requirements of

those statutes, and those statutes specify the limited remedies available. Tex. Gov’t

Code §§ 531.019, 2001.171—.178. By failing to comply with those statutory

prerequisites, Ms. Tanner’s claims are barred by sovereign immunity. Tex. Gov’t

Code § 311.034. ([A] statute shall not be construed as a waiver of sovereign
BRIEF OF APPELLEES TEXAS HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES COMMISSION,
JULIA MURRAY, WENDY PROCTOR, AND JUAN RODRIGUEZ
Case No. 15-25-00008-CV Page 19 of 23
immunity unless the waiver is effected by clear and unambiguous

language….Statutory prerequisites to a suit...are jurisdictional requirements in all

suits against a governmental entity.).

Finally, sovereign immunity continues to protect state agencies engaged in

core administrative functions, including benefit eligibility determinations and

hearings. Nazari v. State, 561 S.W.3d 495 (Tex. 2018); Eastland Cnty. Co-op.

Dispatch v. Poyner, 64 S.W.3d 182 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2001, pet. denied).

Because Ms. Tanner failed to timely file her claim, she cannot establish a

waiver of sovereign immunity and cannot overcome the legal protections accorded

to HHSC and its officials. Dismissal was not only proper—it was required.

CONCLUSION & PRAYER
Ms. Tanner failed to comply with the statutory prerequisites for seeking

judicial review of the Texas Health and Human Services Commission’s final

decision, including the mandatory 30-day filing deadline under Texas Government

Code Sections 531.019(g) and 2001.176(a). The trial court correctly dismissed the

case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Moreover, Ms. Tanner’s constitutional

claims do not confer jurisdiction or standing; the relief she seeks is not redressable

by the courts; and her claims are barred by sovereign immunity.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Texas Health and Human

Services Commission, Fair Hearings Officer Juan Rodriguez, ALJ Julia Murray, and
BRIEF OF APPELLEES TEXAS HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES COMMISSION,
JULIA MURRAY, WENDY PROCTOR, AND JUAN RODRIGUEZ
Case No. 15-25-00008-CV Page 20 of 23
Fair Hearings Director Wendy Proctor respectfully request that this Court affirm the

trial court’s order dismissing Ms. Tanner’s claims with prejudice, and grant

Appellees such other and further relief to which they may be justly entitled.

BRIEF OF APPELLEES TEXAS HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES COMMISSION,
JULIA MURRAY, WENDY PROCTOR, AND JUAN RODRIGUEZ
Case No. 15-25-00008-CV Page 21 of 23
Respectfully submitted,

KEN PAXTON
Attorney General of Texas

BRENT WEBSTER
First Assistant Attorney General

RALPH MOLINA
Deputy First Assistant Attorney General

AUSTIN KINGHORN
Deputy Attorney General for Civil Litigation

ERNEST C. GARCIA
Chief, Administrative Law Division

/s/ Griselle Ortiz Astacio
GRISELLE ORTIZ ASTACIO
Texas State Bar No. 24103222
LAUREN MCGEE
State Bar No. 24128835
Assistant Attorneys General
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW DIVISION
P.O. Box 12548, Capitol Station
Austin, Texas 78711-2548
Telephone: (512) 475-4200
Griselle.OrtizAstacio@oag.texas.gov
Lauren.McGee@oag.texas.gov

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES TEXAS HEALTH
AND HUMAN SERVICES COMMISSION, JULIA
MURRAY, WENDY PROCTOR, AND JUAN
RODRIGUEZ

BRIEF OF APPELLEES TEXAS HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES COMMISSION,
JULIA MURRAY, WENDY PROCTOR, AND JUAN RODRIGUEZ
Case No. 15-25-00008-CV Page 22 of 23
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
I certify that the submitted brief complies with Rule 9 of the Texas Rules of
Appellate Procedure and the word count of this document is 4,416. The word
processing software used to prepare this filing and calculate the word count of the
document is Microsoft Word for Office 365.

Date: May 29, 2025

/s/ Griselle Ortiz Astacio
GRISELLE ORTIZ ASTACIO
Assistant Attorney General

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on May 29, 2025, a true and correct copy of the above
and forgoing document has been served to the following party of record via
electronic service and/or electronic mail:

Linda D. Tanner
2320 Poplar Street, Unit 203
Fort Worth, TX 76102
(915) 270-8227
Lulu3822@gmail.com

Appellant Pro Se

/s/ Griselle Ortiz Astacio
GRISELLE ORTIZ ASTACIO
Assistant Attorney General

BRIEF OF APPELLEES TEXAS HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES COMMISSION,
JULIA MURRAY, WENDY PROCTOR, AND JUAN RODRIGUEZ
Case No. 15-25-00008-CV Page 23 of 23
Automated Certificate of eService
This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system.
The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system
on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing
certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a
certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.

Christian Young on behalf of Griselle Ortiz Astacio
Bar No. 24103222
christian.young@oag.texas.gov
Envelope ID: 101411902
Filing Code Description: Brief Not Requesting Oral Argument
Filing Description: Brief of Appellees
Status as of 5/30/2025 8:54 AM CST

Case Contacts

Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status

Christian Young christian.young@oag.texas.gov 5/29/2025 7:18:27 PM SENT

SUSAN MILSAPPS susan.millsapps@oag.texas.gov 5/29/2025 7:18:27 PM SENT

Associated Case Party: LindaDTanner

Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status

LINDA DTANNER lulu143134143@gmail.com 5/29/2025 7:18:27 PM SENT

Linda Tanner Lulu3822@gmail.com 5/29/2025 7:18:27 PM SENT

Associated Case Party: TEXAS HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES COMMISSION

Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status

GRISELLE ORTIZASTACIO Griselle.OrtizAstacio@oag.texas.gov 5/29/2025 7:18:27 PM SENT

ATTN: LEGAL DEPARTMENT legaldepartment@hhsc.gov 5/29/2025 7:18:27 PM SENT

Associated Case Party: JUAN RODRIGUEZ

Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status

GRISELLE ORTIZASTACIO Griselle.OrtizAstacio@oag.texas.gov 5/29/2025 7:18:27 PM SENT

LAUREN MCGEE Lauren.Mcgee@oag.texas.gov 5/29/2025 7:18:27 PM SENT

Associated Case Party: WENDY PROCTOR

Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Automated Certificate of eService
This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system.
The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system
on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing
certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a
certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.

Christian Young on behalf of Griselle Ortiz Astacio
Bar No. 24103222
christian.young@oag.texas.gov
Envelope ID: 101411902
Filing Code Description: Brief Not Requesting Oral Argument
Filing Description: Brief of Appellees
Status as of 5/30/2025 8:54 AM CST

Associated Case Party: WENDY PROCTOR

Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status

GRISELLE ORTIZASTACIO Griselle.OrtizAstacio@oag.texas.gov 5/29/2025 7:18:27 PM SENT

LAUREN MCGEE Lauren.Mcgee@oag.texas.gov 5/29/2025 7:18:27 PM SENT

Associated Case Party: JULIA MURRAY

Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status

GRISELLE ORTIZASTACIO Griselle.OrtizAstacio@oag.texas.gov 5/29/2025 7:18:27 PM SENT

LAUREN MCGEE Lauren.Mcgee@oag.texas.gov 5/29/2025 7:18:27 PM SENT

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11063001. Public record. Not legal advice.