United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit

____________ FILED July 16, 2024 No. 23-50215 Lyle W. Cayce ____________ Clerk Dobbin Plantersville Water Supply Corporation,

Plaintiff—Appellant,

versus Peter Lake, In his official capacity as Commissioner of the Public Utility Commission of Texas; Will McAdams, In his official capacity as Commissioner of the Public Utility Commission of Texas; Lori Cobos, In her official capacity as Commissioner of the Public Utility Commission of Texas; Thomas Gleeson, in his official capacity as Executive Director of the Public Utility Commission of Texas; SIG Magnolia L.P., a Texas limited partnership; Redbird Development, L.L.C., a Texas limited liability company; Commissioner Jimmy Glotfelty; Commissioner Kathleen Jackson,

Defendants—Appellees. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 1:21-CV-612 ______________________________ Before Jones, Dennis*, and Douglas, Circuit Judges. Edith H. Jones, Circuit Judge:

_____________________ * Judge Dennis concurs in the judgment only. Case: 23-50215 Document: 118-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/16/2024

The Public Utility Commission of Texas issued two orders decertifying territory from the certificate of convenience and necessity issued to Dobbin Plantersville Water Supply Corporation. Dobbin, the recipient of federal loans through 7 U.S.C. § 1926’s lending program for rural water utilities, filed this lawsuit in federal court against the PUC’s chairman and commissioners and the two developers that sought decertification. It averred that section 13.2541 of the Texas Water Code, under which the developers sought (and soon after obtained) decertification, is preempted by 7 U.S.C. § 1926(b), which grants monopoly protection to recipients of federal loans for “service provided or made available” during the term of the loan. Early in the lawsuit, the district court dismissed Dobbin’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims against the PUC officials after concluding that the officials were not appropriate defendants under § 1983. At the summary judgment stage, the district court dismissed Dobbin’s remaining claims, primarily on jurisdictional grounds, with prejudice. It concluded that Dobbin lacked a cause of action against the developers, and an injunction prohibiting the PUC from enforcing its decertification decisions would not redress Dobbin’s injuries. We AFFIRM. I. Facts 1. Statutory background Texas law authorizes the PUC to issue a certificate of convenience and necessity, or CCN, to a water utility, granting the utility the exclusive right to provide water service in a designated geographic area. See TEX. WATER CODE §§ 13.242, 13.244; Tex. Gen. Land Office v. Crystal Clear Water Supply Corp., 449 S.W.3d 130, 133 (Tex. App.—Austin 2014, pet. denied). In exchange for that right, the utility must agree to “render continuous and adequate service within the area” and to “serve every consumer.” TEX. WATER CODE § 13.250(a). If the utility fails to provide “water or sewer Case: 23-50215 Document: 118-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/16/2024