Jessie Goodfellow v. City of North Richland Hills, T. Oscar Trevino, Jr., Billy Parks, Cecille Delaney, Ricky Rodriguez, Danny Roberts, Matt Blake, Russ Mitchell, Kelvin Deupree, Mark Hindman, Robert Burgess, Paulette Hartman, and Boe Blankenship

Summary

The Texas Court of Appeals, Second Appellate District, affirmed the dismissal of Jessie Goodfellow’s claims against the City of North Richland Hills and several city officials. The court held that the trial court properly considered Goodfellow’s amended petition, that prospective injunctive relief could not stand without an underlying cause of action against the City, and that her alleged ultra vires claims failed because she sought monetary damages. The court also held that a constitutional takings claim under Article I, Section 17 of the Texas Constitution cannot be maintained against individual officials rather than a governmental entity with eminent-domain power.

Holdings

1. A plea to the jurisdiction is not rendered moot merely because the plaintiff files an amended petition. Claims remaining in the live pleading may be resolved through the previously filed jurisdictional plea, and the trial court properly evaluated Goodfellow's first amended petition.
2. A plaintiff may not maintain a claim for prospective injunctive relief against a governmental entity without pleading an underlying cause of action establishing liability. Because Goodfellow pleaded no cause of action against the City, the trial court properly dismissed her requested injunctive relief.
3. Goodfellow did not adequately plead an ultra vires claim because her only claim against the individual appellees sought damages for an already completed injury rather than prospective relief, and her allegations of unauthorized conduct were inadequately specific.
4. A constitutional takings claim under Article I, Section 17 of the Texas Constitution cannot be maintained against individual governmental officials; it must be asserted against an entity with eminent-domain power. Goodfellow's takings claim against the individual appellees therefore failed.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court was required to deny the plea to the jurisdiction and motion to dismiss as moot because Goodfellow filed a first amended petition after those motions were filed.
2. Whether Goodfellow could obtain prospective injunctive relief against the City without pleading an underlying cause of action against the City.
3. Whether Goodfellow adequately pleaded ultra vires claims against the individual governmental officials when she sought damages rather than prospective relief and alleged only vague conclusions concerning ultra vires conduct.
4. Whether a constitutional takings claim under Article I, Section 17 of the Texas Constitution may be maintained against individual governmental officials rather than an entity with eminent-domain power.

Disposition

affirmed