The opinion
Case: 20-50284 Document: 00515823867 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/15/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 20-50284 April 15, 2021
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Linda Baldwin,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Office of Injured Employee Counsel,
Defendant—Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 1:19-CV-454
Before Higginbotham, Jones, and Costa, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Linda Baldwin suffered an injury in 2006 while employed by Extended
Stay America as a housekeeping attendant. She applied for workers’
compensation benefits and sought assistance in March 2008 from the Office
of Injured Employee Counsel (OIEC) Ombudsman Program, a state program
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 20-50284 Document: 00515823867 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/15/2021
No. 20-50284
that provides assistance to unrepresented injured employees seeking
workers’ compensation. 1 In 2012 and 2016, Baldwin participated in
contested case hearings before the Texas Department of Insurance Division
of Workers’ Compensation (DWC). The DWC denied her request for
workers’ compensation benefits, concluding that she did not sustain a
compensable injury. It further determined that her employer’s insurance
carrier, Zurich American Insurance Company, was not liable for any
workers’ compensation benefits because Baldwin had failed to timely notify
her employer of her injury or timely file a DWC claim. 2
Baldwin filed suit against the OIEC, asserting claims under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 3 and the Texas Tort
Claims Act. 4 The district court dismissed Baldwin’s claims for lack of
subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(1), concluding that her claims were barred by sovereign immunity.
Baldwin now appeals.
We review a district court’s dismissal for lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction de novo. 5 Dismissal on this basis is appropriate if the claims
asserted are barred by a state’s sovereign immunity. 6
It is undisputed that Baldwin brings her suit against a state agency, the
OIEC. 7 “Federal courts are without jurisdiction over suits against . . . a state
1
See Tex. Labor Code Ann. § 404.151(b).
2
See id. §§ 409.001–004.
3
42 U.S.C. § 12131 et seq.
4
Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 101.021.
5
Meyers ex rel. Benzing v. Texas, 410 F.3d 236, 240 (5th Cir. 2005).
6
Id.
7
See Tex. Labor Code Ann. § 404.002.
2
Case: 20-50284 Document: 00515823867 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/15/2021
No. 20-50284
agency . . . unless that state has waived its sovereign immunity or Congress
has clearly abrogated it.” 8 After careful review of the briefs and the record,
we agree with the district court that Baldwin fails to plead facts indicating
that Texas’s sovereign immunity from suit has been either waived or
abrogated. Sovereign immunity, therefore, bars her claims, and she cannot
establish federal jurisdiction over them.
The district court’s dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction is
affirmed.
8
Moore v. La. Bd. of Elementary and Secondary Educ., 743 F.3d 959, 963 (5th Cir.
2014); see also U.S. CONST. amend. XI.
3