![]() |
| If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|||||||
| Tags: attorney, general, letter, sloan, texas, truong |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
|
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
GREG ABBOTT November 19, 2007 The Honorable Denny Chin United States District Judge Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse 500 Pearl Street, Room 1020 New York, New York 10007 Sloan v. Truong, et al., No. 07 CV 8537 (DC) Dear Judge Chin: I represent defendant Texas Tech University ("TTU") in the above- captioned lawsuit. This letter is written to apprise the Court of my anticipated motion to dismiss the case against TTU pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), and to request a pre-motion conference pursuant to the Court's Individual Practice 2(A). I intend to move to dismiss the case both for four reasons: 1. Plaintiff alleges no specific cause of action against Texas Tech University. 2. Texas Tech University has 11th Amendment immunity from Plaintiffs § 1983 claim. 3. Texas Tech University is not a person within the meaning of § 1983. 4. Texas Tech University is immune from suit under 47 U.S.C. § 230. As a threshold requirement, the Complaint does not explain what, if anything, is the basis for Sloan's claim against TTU. Plaintiff presents five (5) causes of action, and in none of these is any wrongdoing by TTU identified. Plaintiffs claim against TTU is that TTU owned computers from which allegedly defamatory material was sent. This is not described in any of the causes of action. Defamation, by itself, is not typically a federal cause of action, but in conjunction with a showing of additional protected interests, it can be. When those instances occur, the proper vehicle for relief is 42 U.S.C. § 1983. While TTU does not believe that any of these additional protected interests are involved in this lawsuit, even if the court decides that they were, Plaintiff presents an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. If the Plaintiff has sufficient facts pled that this Court believes Plaintiff has articulated a § 1983 claim, TTU has immunity under the 11th Amendment to the United States constitution. The Eleventh Amendment deprives a federal court of jurisdiction to hear a suit against the State of Texas, regardless of the relief sought, unless sovereign immunity is expressly waived. Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100-02,104 S.Ct 900, 908-09 (1984); Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 662-63, 94 S.Ct. 1347, 1355-56 (1974). State universities are afforded Eleventh Amendment immunity as a matter of law. See Dube v. State University of New York, 900 F.2d 587, 594 (2d Cir.1990). Section 1983 does not abrogate a state's Eleventh Amendment immunity and there has been no waiver for § 1983 claims on the part of the State. See Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332 (1979). Nor has Texas waived its immunity to suit in federal court under constitutional tort statutes such as §§ 1981, 1983, 1985 and 1986. See e.g., Aguilar v. Texas Dept. of Crim. Justice, Inst. Div., 160 F.3d 1052, 1054 (5th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 120 S.Ct. 130 (1999). Plaintiff may not recover in an action against TTU even if he can prove a waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity for § 1983 claims, because TTU is not a "person" within the meaning of § 1983. See, e.g., Na(-,r v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21, 22-23, 112 S.Ct. 358, 360 (1991); Will v. Michigan Dept. Of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71,109 S.Ct. 2304, 2312 (1989); Pennhurst, 465 U.S. at 101, 104 S.Ct. at 908-09. Although TTU specifically denies that any alleged defamatory messages in this case were sent from any TTU computer, even if such messages were sent from a TTU computer, any potential claim by Plaintiff against TTU in this case is barred by the Communications Decency Act of 1996 ("CDA"), 47 U.S.C. § 230, et seq. Section 230 provides that "[n]o provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider," § 230(c)(1), and that "[n]o cause of action may be brought and no liability may be imposed under any State or local law that is inconsistent with this section," id. § 230(e)(3). By its plain language, § 230 creates a federal immunity to any cause of action that would make service providers liable for information originating with a third party user of the service. See Zeran v. America Online, Inc., 129 F.3d 327, 330 (4th Cir.1997). Specifically, § 230 precludes courts from entertaining claims that would place a computer service provider in a publisher's role. Zeran at 330. The Zeran quotation, in context, refers to defamation and other forms of tort liability. Gucci Am.. Inc. at 415. In the instant case, TTU operates only in the role of an interactive computer service. § 230 (f)(2) defines "Interactive computer service" as: The term "interactive computer service" means any information service, system, or access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server, including specifically a service or system that provides access to the Internet and such systems operated or services offered by libraries or educational institutions. Clearly in this case, the allegation that TTU allowed other Defendants to use TTU computers puts TTU in the role of an interactive computer service. Consequently, under Zeran and the other authority cited supra, TTU is immune from the claims of this suit, and is entitled to dismissal. I believe that these arguments compel the dismissal of the case against Texas Tech University under Rule 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), FED. R. C1v. P., and request that the Court schedule a pre-motion conference. Please contact me at (512) 463-2120, to schedule the pre- motion conference. Respectfully submitted, SCOT M. GRAYDON Assistant Attorney General General Litigation Division cc: Samuel H. Sloan Jeremy Brown, Esq. Patrick M. O'Brien, Esq. Client POST OFFICE Box 12548, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711-2548 TEL: (512)463-2100 WEB: WWW.OAG.STATE. TX.US An Equal Employment Opportunity Employer -Printed on Recycled Paper POST OFFICE BOX 12548, AUSTIN, TEXAS 7871 1-2548 TEL: (512)463-2100 WEB: WWW.OAG.STATE.TX.US An Equal Employment Opportunity Employer Printed on Recycled Paper The Honorable Denny Chin November 19, 2007 Page Two (2) http://www.samsloan.com/texas-ag.pdf |
| Ads |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Introduction to The Model Architect by Sam Sloan | samsloan | rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) | 3 | May 18th 07 02:49 AM |
| Paul Truong is the Fake Sam Sloan | BarbaraVilliers | rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) | 0 | August 1st 06 12:33 PM |
| Paul Truong is the Fake Sam Sloan | BarbaraVilliers | rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) | 0 | August 1st 06 12:33 PM |
| Paul Truong is the Fake Sam Sloan | BarbaraVilliers | alt.chess (Alternative Chess Group) | 0 | August 1st 06 12:33 PM |