Hurt

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

JOHN HURT, §

§

Plaintiff, §

§

V. § No. 3:25-cv-3154-D

§

HUNT COUNTY, TEXAS, ET AL., §

§

Defendants. §

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

The Court previously granted the motions to dismiss filed by Defendants Hunt

County, Texas and Hunt County Sheriff Terry Jones (the “Hunt County Defendants”)

and denied Plaintiff John Hurt’s motion for a temporary restraining order and

preliminary injunction against Defendants Bernalillo County, Bernalillo County

Clerk, and New Mexico Administrative Office of the Courts (the “New Mexico

Defendants”), both motions that Senior Judge Sidney A. Fitzwater referred to the

undersigned United States magistrate judge for recommendation. See Hurt v. Hunt

Cnty., Tex., No. 3:25-cv-3154-D, 2025 WL 3560576 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 5, 2025), rec.

adopted, 2025 WL 3618251 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 12, 2025) [Dkt. Nos. 55 & 63].

After the undersigned entered recommendations as to the referred motions,

Judge Fitzwater referred this action to the undersigned for pretrial management

under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). See Dkt. No. 60.

Judge Fitzwater also entered a final judgment as to the Hunt County

Defendants under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), dismissing the claims

against them with prejudice. See Dkt. No. 64.

The Court then denied Hurt’s Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) motion as

to this judgment. See Dkt. Nos. 65 & 81. And he has noticed an appeal of the judgment

to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. See Dkt. No. 82.

So what’s left before the district court are Hurt’s claims against the New

Mexico Defendants, who filed motions to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure 12(b)(1), 12(b)(2), and 12(b)(3), see Dkt. Nos. 26 & 29 – motions that appear

to have been inadvertently terminated when this case was transferred from the

Eastern District of Texas, see Dkt. Nos. 23 & 40-42; see also Dkt. Nos. 32 & 37 (Hurts’s

responses to the New Mexico Defendants’ motions).

Defendant Bernalillo County, New Mexico moves for dismissal under Rules

12(b)(2) (for lack of personal jurisdiction) and 12(b)(3) (for improper venue). See Dkt.

No. 26. And Defendants Bernalillo County Clerk of Court (more properly identified

as the Clerk of Court for the Second Judicial District) and New Mexico Administrative

Office of the Courts move for dismissal under Rules 12(b)(1) (based on sovereign

immunity) and 12(b)(2) (for lack of personal jurisdiction). See Dkt. No. 29.

And the undersigned now recommends that the Court grant these motions and

dismiss this lawsuit for the reasons and to the extent set out below.

Discussion

The Clerk of Court for the Second Judicial District and New Mexico

Administrative Office of the Courts first move for dismissal based on sovereign

immunity under the Eleventh Amendment, which “precludes suits by private citizens

against states in federal court.” Tawakkol v. Vasquez, 87 F.4th 715, 718 (5th Cir.

2023) (citation omitted).

“Jurisdiction is the power to say what the law is.” United States v. Willis, 76

F.4th 467, 479 (5th Cir. 2023). So consideration of “[j]urisdiction is always first.”

Louisiana v. U.S. Dep’t of Energy, 90 F.4th 461, 466 (5th Cir. 2024) (citation omitted).

And, “[a]bsent waiver, the immunity of a state from suit as signified by, but not fully

expressed in, the Eleventh Amendment is a jurisdictional barrier.” Stramaski v.

Lawley, 44 F.4th 318, 321-22 (5th Cir. 2022) (citation omitted).

That is, “[f]ederal courts are without jurisdiction over suits against a state, a

state agency, or a state official in his official capacity unless that state has waived its

sovereign immunity or Congress has clearly abrogated it.” NiGen Biotech, L.L.C. v.

Paxton, 804 F.3d 389, 393-94 (5th Cir. 2015) (quoting Moore v. La. Bd. of Elementary

& Secondary Educ., 743 F.3d 959, 963 (5th Cir. 2014)).

This jurisdiction-stripping immunity has been extended to claims under 42

U.S.C. § 1983 against the State of New Mexico Administrative Office of the Courts,

see Schrader v. Richardson, 461 F. App’x 657, 660 (10th Cir. 2012), and Section 1983

claims against the Second Judicial District Court, see Walker v. New Mexico, Civ. No.

15-295 KK/SCY, 2015 WL 13651131, at *6 (D.N.M. Sept. 21, 2015) (“[T]he Court finds

that Defendant the Second Judicial District Court is likewise not a suable ‘person’

under Section 1983, because it is ‘an arm of the state for Eleventh Amendment

purposes.’” (quoting Harris v. Champion, 51 F.3d 901, 905-06 (10th Cir. 1995),

superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Knox v. Bland, 632 F.3d 1290,

1292 (10th Cir. 2011))).

These claims should therefore be dismissed without prejudice for lack of

subject-matter jurisdiction.

And the remainder of this lawsuit should be dismissed without prejudice

because the Court lacks jurisdiction over the New Mexico Defendants.

A federal district court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident

defendant if (1) the long-arm statute of the forum state permits the exercise of

personal jurisdiction over the defendant and (2) the exercise of jurisdiction by the

forum state is consistent with due process under the United States Constitution. See

Mullins v. TestAmerica, Inc., 564 F.3d 386, 398 (5th Cir. 2009).

“As the Texas long-arm statute extends as far as constitutional due process

allows, we only consider the second step of the inquiry.” McFadin v. Gerber, 587 F.3d

753, 759 (5th Cir. 2009).

Two types of personal jurisdiction may be exercised over a nonresident

defendant: general and specific.

“General jurisdiction ‘requires continuous and systematic forum contacts and

allows for jurisdiction over all claims against the defendant, no matter their

connection to the forum.’” Zoch v. Magna Seating (Germany) GmbH, 810 F. App’x 285,

288 (5th Cir. 2020) (quoting In re Depuy Orthopaedics, Inc., Pinnacle Hip Implant

Prod. Liab. Litig., 888 F.3d 753, 778 (5th Cir. 2018)). So “it is ‘incredibly difficult to

establish general jurisdiction in a forum other than’” where a defendant is at home.

Seville v. Maersk Line, Ltd., 53 F.4th 890, 895 (5th Cir. 2022) (quoting Frank v. P N

K (Lake Charles) L.L.C., 947 F.3d 331, 337 (5th Cir. 2020)).

“Specific jurisdiction, on the other hand, demands a connection between the

suit and the forum,” Zoch, 810 F. App’x at 288 (citing Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v.

Super. Ct. of Cal., S.F., 582 U.S. 255, 262 (2017)). Accordingly, it “focuses on the

relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation.” Seville, 53 F.4th at

895 (quoting Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277, 284 (2014)).

In evaluating whether due process permits the exercise of specific

jurisdiction, [courts in this circuit] consider

(1) whether the defendant has minimum contacts with the

forum state, i.e., whether it purposely directed its activities

toward the forum state or purposefully availed itself of the

privileges of conducting activities there; (2) whether the

plaintiff’s cause of action arises out of or results from the

defendant’s forum-related contacts; and (3) whether the

exercise of personal jurisdiction is fair and reasonable.

If the plaintiff establishes the first two prongs, the burden shifts to the

defendant to make a “compelling case” that the assertion of jurisdiction

is not fair or reasonable.

Carmona v. Leo Ship Mgmt., Inc., 924 F.3d 190, 193 (5th Cir. 2019) (quoting Seiferth

v. Helicopteros Atuneros, Inc., 472 F.3d 266, 271 (5th Cir. 2006); footnote omitted).

“For there to be minimum contacts, a defendant must have ‘purposefully

availed himself of the benefits and protections of the forum state’ ‘such that he should

reasonably anticipate being haled into court there.’” Id. (quoting Moncrief Oil Int’l

Inc. v. OAO Gazprom, 481 F.3d 309, 311 (5th Cir. 2007), then Burger King Corp. v.

Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 474 (1985) (quoting World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v.

Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 297 (1980))).

“In other words, for specific personal jurisdiction to exist over [a nonresident

defendant], there must be an affiliation between the forum and the underlying

controversy.” Conti 11. Container Schiffarts-GMBH & Co. KG M.S., MSC Flaminia

v. MSC Mediterranean Shipping Co. S.A., 91 F.4th 789, 794 (5th Cir. 2024) (cleaned

up; quoting Ford Motor Co. v. Mont. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 592 U.S. 351, 359 (2021)).

This “constitutional touchstone” “ensures that a defendant will not be haled

into a jurisdiction solely as a result of random, fortuitous, or attenuated contacts, or

of the unilateral activity of another party or a third person.” Burger King, 471 U.S.

at 474, 475 (cleaned up).

“That is, the plaintiff cannot supply ‘the only link between the defendant and

the forum.’” Carmona, 924 F.3d at 924 (quoting Walden, 571 U.S. at 285).

“Rather, jurisdiction is proper only where the ‘defendant himself’ made

deliberate contact with the forum.” Id. (quoting Walden, 571 U.S. at 284 (quoting

Burger King, 471 U.S. at 475)).

And, here, where the Court is considering personal jurisdiction over

nonresident defendants based on the allegations of the complaint, “without

conducting an evidentiary hearing, the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing only

a prima facie case of personal jurisdiction.” Hazim v. Schiel & Denver Book

Publishers, 647 F. App’x 455, 457 (5th Cir. 2016) (citing Quick Techs., Inc. v. Sage

Grp. PLC, 313 F.3d 338, 343 (5th Cir. 2002); Sys. Pipe & Supply, Inc. v. M/V VIKTOR

KURNATOVSKIY, 242 F.3d 322, 325 (5th Cir. 2001)).

“Nevertheless, the prima facie method does not require the court to credit

conclusory allegations, unproven assumptions, generalizations or farfetched

inferences.” Daniels Agrosciences, LLC v. Ball DPF, LLC, No. CA 13-268 ML, 2013

WL 5310208, at *3 (D.R.I. Sept. 20, 2013) (citations omitted).

The New Mexico Defendants are not at home in Texas. So the Court lacks

general personal jurisdiction over them.

And, as to personal jurisdiction based on Hurt’s current allegations, Hurt has

not shown a prima facie case of specific personal jurisdiction where there is not an

affiliation between Hurt’s claims against the New Mexico Defendants and Texas.

Instead, Hurt himself provides the only link between these claims and Texas. And,

so, no New Mexico Defendant has made deliberate contact with Texas to show that

jurisdiction over any of them here would be consistent with due process.

As the State of New Mexico Administrative Office of the Courts and the Second

Judicial District Court explain,

[i]n the present case, plaintiff alleges that his harassment conviction

was automatically vacated when Plaintiff filed a de novo appeal. He also

alleges that he was found incompetent under New Mexico law; charges

should have been dismissed under New Mexico law. Plaintiff continues

to allege that New Mexico failed to clear its records and continued to

circulate warrants showing stalking/harassment charges. Plaintiff

further alleges that he has lost a Texas job offer … after a background

check showed the invalid New Mexico conviction and warrants.

Dkt. No. 29 at 8 (cleaned up).

And that Hurt allegedly suffered some harm in Texas that he claims was based

on events that occurred in New Mexico is not enough to provide a sufficient link to

Texas where it is not plausibly alleged that the New Mexico Defendnats “purposely

directed their activities toward Texas or purposely availed themselves of the privilege

of conducting activities in Texas.” Stevens v. Hayes, No. A-11-CA-550 LY, 2012 WL

2572790, at *14 (W.D. Tex. July 12, 2012) (noting that such a “specific jurisdiction

analysis” “is most similar to cases where plaintiffs bring suit in their home states

against traffic law enforcement officers of other states” (collecting cases)), aff’d, 535

F. App’x 358 (5th Cir. 2013); cf. Lamont v. Assaf, No. 3:21-cv-1176-K-BN, 2022 WL

362573, at *8 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 18, 2022) (“Even had Plaintiffs alleged that [Defendant]

Van Sciver knew that [Plaintiff] Poulter resides in Texas, they fail to present

allegations showing that Van Sciver’s actions were both expressly aimed at Texas and

calculated to cause injury to Poulter in Texas. As such, Van Sciver’s only alleged

connection to Texas – that he allegedly defamed a Texan on the internet – is just

random, fortuitous, and attenuated. Put another way, Plaintiffs have not alleged that

Van Sciver deliberately acted to make contact with Texas.” (cleaned up)), rec.

accepted, 2022 WL 357174 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 7, 2022).

Recommendation

The Court should grant the motions filed by Defendants Bernalillo County,

Bernalillo County Clerk, and New Mexico Administrative Office of the Courts [Dkt.

Nos. 26 & 29] and dismiss the claims against these defendants without prejudice. The

Court should also terminate all pending motions and enter a final judgment.

A copy of these findings, conclusions, and recommendation shall be served on

all parties in the manner provided by law. Any party who objects to any part of these

findings, conclusions, and recommendation must file specific written objections

within 14 days after being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. CIV.

P. 72(b). In order to be specific, an objection must identify the specific finding or

recommendation to which objection is made, state the basis for the objection, and

specify the place in the magistrate judge’s findings, conclusions, and recommendation

where the disputed determination is found. An objection that merely incorporates by

reference or refers to the briefing before the magistrate judge is not specific. Failure

to file specific written objections will bar the aggrieved party from appealing the

factual findings and legal conclusions of the magistrate judge that are accepted or

adopted by the district court, except upon grounds of plain error. See Douglass v.

United Servs. Auto. Assn, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996).

DATED: April 15, 2026

Lee

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

□□□