Fred Thompson v. Housing Auth of New Orleans, et a
689 F. App'x 324
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Thompson, a HANO police officer, objected to riding with Officer Baron, alleging Baron had a history of civil-rights violations; supervisors ordered him to patrol with Baron and later disciplined him for insubordination.
- Thompson received a written reprimand, a notice that he could be terminated as a probationary employee, filed a grievance, and then was terminated.
- He sued in Louisiana state court asserting state-law claims (civil service and whistleblower protections; constitutional challenge to La. R.S. 40:539(C)(8)(b)) and federal claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1986.
- Defendants removed the case to federal court; Thompson moved to remand.
- The district court retained and stayed the federal claims but remanded the state-law claims under Pullman abstention because the constitutionality of the 2013 amendment to La. R.S. 40:539 was an unsettled issue of state law that could resolve the federal due-process question.
- The Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding Pullman abstention appropriate where resolution of the state constitutional question could obviate or substantially affect the federal constitutional claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Pullman abstention was appropriate because state-law questions must be resolved first | Thompson argued the state constitutional challenge to La. R.S. 40:539(C)(8)(b) is unsettled; resolving it could eliminate the federal due-process/property-interest question | HANO argued the statute clearly excludes HANO from state instrumentalities and civil service, so federal court should decide federal claims now | Court held Pullman abstention appropriate: the state-law issue was unclear and could substantially affect the federal constitutional claims |
| Whether district court properly remanded/severed state-law claims while retaining federal claims | Thompson sought remand of state claims; district court remanded them and stayed federal claims | Defendants opposed remand and sought federal adjudication | Court affirmed district court’s discretion to sever and remand novel/complex state-law claims and to retain/stay federal claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Railroad Comm’n of Tex. v. Pullman Co., 312 U.S. 496 (1941) (abstention doctrine where state-law issues could avoid federal constitutional decision)
- Bank One, N.A. v. Boyd, 288 F.3d 181 (5th Cir. 2002) (standard of review for abstention decisions)
- Moore v. Hosemann, 591 F.3d 741 (5th Cir. 2009) (Pullman abstention elements and purpose)
- Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Unauthorized Practice of Law Comm., 283 F.3d 650 (5th Cir. 2002) (Pullman abstention practice and district court retaining/staying jurisdiction)