Elmer Cox v. Nueces County, Texas
839 F.3d 418
| 5th Cir. | 2016Background
- Cox and Burnside, Nueces County sheriff’s deputies, were reassigned to the county jail in 2012 and later terminated; they alleged transfers and terminations were politically motivated in violation of the First Amendment and brought § 1983 suits.
- Separately, they filed grievances with the Nueces County Civil Service Commission alleging adverse actions violating county civil-service political-activity rules; the Commission denied relief and the state district court affirmed that decision in March 2015.
- After the state-court judgment, the defendants moved for summary judgment in federal court on preclusion grounds; the district court granted summary judgment based on res judicata (claim preclusion).
- Plaintiffs argued on appeal that res judicata was wrongly applied because the state court never adjudicated their First Amendment claims and that they had abstained from litigating federal claims in state court.
- The Fifth Circuit applied Texas law on preclusion, rejected plaintiffs’ abstention argument, and affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the state-court judgment bars the federal First Amendment claims via res judicata | The state court did not decide their First Amendment claims, so no prior judgment on the merits for those claims | The state-court judgment precludes later suits on claims that could have been raised in the state proceeding under Texas transactional preclusion law | Held: Res judicata applies because plaintiffs could have raised the federal claims in the state review and failed to do so |
| Whether plaintiffs’ alleged deliberate abstention from litigating federal claims in state court avoids preclusion | Plaintiffs say they intentionally withheld federal claims from the state proceeding to preserve them for federal court | Defendants say no notice of abstention was given to the state court; plaintiffs never brought federal claims in state forum | Held: Abstention doctrine inapplicable; no notice to state court and plaintiffs never filed federal claims there, so abstention does not excuse preclusion |
| Choice of law for preclusive effect | (implicit) Federal standard urged by plaintiffs | Preclusive effect of a state-court judgment is determined by state law (Texas) | Held: Apply Texas res judicata law under Kremer/§1738 mandate |
| Collateral estoppel raised in reply briefing | Plaintiffs later raised collateral estoppel instead of res judicata | Defendants relied on claim preclusion; district court ruled only on res judicata | Held: Court declined to consider collateral estoppel on appeal because argument was raised first in reply and thus waived |
Key Cases Cited
- Kremer v. Chemical Construction Corp., 456 U.S. 461 (state-court judgment preclusive effect governed by state law under full faith and credit)
- Migra v. Warren City School District Board of Education, 465 U.S. 75 (abstention and notice requirements when seeking to preserve claims)
- Barr v. Resolution Trust Corp., 837 S.W.2d 627 (Tex. 1992) (Texas transactional test: all claims arising from same transaction must be raised initially)
- Amstadt v. U.S. Brass Corp., 919 S.W.2d 644 (Tex. 1996) (elements of res judicata under Texas law)
- Turner v. City of Carrollton Civil Serv. Comm’n, 884 S.W.2d 889 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1994) (constitutional claims may be raised in civil-service commission/state-court review)
- United States v. Jackson, 426 F.3d 301 (5th Cir. 2005) (argument raised first in a reply brief is waived)