See Reichle , 566 U.S. at 664, 132 S.Ct. 2088. The case law in this area is sparse; Plaintiffs cite only a Tenth Circuit case and a district court case touching on the issue of parents' right to control their children's medical care. Dubbs v. Head Start, Inc. , 336 F.3d 1194 (10th Cir. 2003) ; Beleno v. Lakey , 306 F. Supp. 3d 930 (W.D. Tex. 2009). In Dubbs , the Tenth Circuit held that the district court had erroneously applied the "shocks the conscience" standard to a claim similar to the instant claim, but "decline[d] to resolve the difficult questions regarding the standard to be applied."
First, the Texas Supreme Court cases cited by Smith regarding the ultra vires exception do not address Texas's waiver of sovereign immunity to suit in federal court, only the waiver of immunity in its own courts. Beleno v. Lakey, 306 F.Supp.3d 930, 942 (W.D. Tex. 2009) (citing Pennhurst, 465 U.S. at 100 n.9 (“a State's waiver of sovereign immunity in its own courts is not a waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts.”); see also United Steel, Paper & Forestry, Rubber, Mfg., Energy, Allied Indus. & Serv. Workers Int'l Union v. Anderson, No. SA-17-CV-1242-XR, 2018 WL 3017366, at *9 n.7 (W.D. Tex. June 15, 2018)
Under Rule 12(b)(1), a party or claim can be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Beleno v. Lakey, 306 F.Supp.3d 930, 938-39 (W.D. Tex. 2009). In evaluating a Rule 12(b)(1) motion, the Court “must take all of the factual allegations in the complaint as true, but . . .
Under Rule 12(b)(1), a party or claim can be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Beleno v. Lakey, 306 F.Supp.3d 930, 938-39 (W.D. Tex. 2009). Rule 12(b)(1) applies in the Eleventh Amendment context.
Under Rule 12(b)(1), a party or claim can be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Beleno v. Lakey, 306 F.Supp.3d 930, 938-39 (W.D. Tex. 2009). Rule 12(b)(1) applies in the Eleventh Amendment context.
Accordingly, Andrews has failed to show she has standing, and the Court recommends that her Complaint be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See Tellez v. Madrigal, No. EP-15-CV-304-KC, 2016 WL 11212416, at *4 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 5, 2016) ("If it is clear from the face of the complaint that the injury is merely speculative, a plaintiff will not be able to proceed with his claim."); Beleno v. Lakey, 306 F. Supp. 3d 930, 942 (W.D. Tex. 2009) (stating that failure to establish any one element of standing deprives court of jurisdiction) (citing Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83, 102-03 (1998)). As Andrews has failed to allege an injury-in-fact to establish standing, the Court need not reach Defendants' alternative arguments for dismissal.
If a case becomes moot, it deprives the court of jurisdiction and it should be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). Beleno v. Lakey, 306 F. Supp. 3d 930, 946 (W.D. Tex. 2009) (citing Spencer v, Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998)). A court may sua sponte raise a 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction at any time.
State law claims brought against state officials in federal court, including claims brought under pendent jurisdiction, are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity." Beleno v. Lakey, 306 F. Supp. 3d 930, 940 (W.D. Tex. 2009) (citing Pennhurst, 465 U.S. at 121). Therefore, based on the facts alleged, the Court finds that all of Oliver's Texas constitutional due process claims brought against all Defendants are barred by the Eleventh Amendment, and thus the Court DISMISSES these claims for a lack of subject matter jurisdiction.