Jeremy Lowrey v. James Beach
708 F. App'x 194
5th Cir.2018Background
- Plaintiff Jeremy Lee Lowrey, a Texas prisoner, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit alleging retaliation and other claims; the district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim.
- Lowrey moved for leave under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(d) to supplement his complaint with new claims against new parties; the district court denied the motion.
- Lowrey appealed the denial of the motion to supplement and the dismissal, and sought appointment of counsel on appeal.
- The district court found the proposed supplemental claims were not connected to his original retaliation claim and could be brought in a separate suit.
- Lowrey’s appellate brief largely focused on the new claims and failed to meaningfully challenge the district court’s disposition of the original claims; the court treated those unbriefed issues as abandoned.
- The Fifth Circuit held the district court erred in dismissing the retaliation claim "without prejudice," modified the judgment to dismiss that claim with prejudice, affirmed as modified, denied appointment of counsel, and assessed one strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 15(d) leave to supplement should have been granted | Lowrey sought to add new claims/parties via supplementation | District court argued new claims were unrelated and could be filed separately | Denial of Rule 15(d) leave was not an abuse of discretion; supplementation properly denied |
| Whether dismissal/preclusion prevented Lowrey from presenting his "best case" | Lowrey contended denial of supplement and dismissal deprived him of presenting his best case | District court found Lowrey had alleged he had adequately pleaded his claims | Argument unavailing; record shows Lowrey believed he pleaded sufficiently and had fair opportunity |
| Whether Lowrey adequately briefed appellate challenges to the district court's dismissal | Lowrey listed nine issues but provided only brief, conclusory references | County (or defendants) rely on failure to brief meaningfully | Court held issues were inadequately briefed and therefore abandoned |
| Whether dismissal of retaliation claim should have been without prejudice | Lowrey (implicitly) sought not to have claim dismissed with prejudice | District court dismissed the retaliation claim without prejudice for failure to state a claim | Fifth Circuit held dismissal without prejudice was error, modified judgment to dismiss retaliation claim with prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Burns v. Exxon Corp., 158 F.3d 336 (5th Cir. 1998) (standard for Rule 15(d) supplement review)
- Griffin v. County Sch. Bd. of Prince Edward Cty., 377 U.S. 218 (U.S. 1964) (limits on adding unrelated claims/parties)
- Jacquez v. Procunier, 801 F.2d 789 (5th Cir. 1986) (right to present one’s best case standard)
- Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744 (5th Cir. 1987) (pro se briefing requirements)
- Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222 (5th Cir. 1993) (pro se litigants must adequately brief arguments)
- Marts v. Hines, 117 F.3d 1504 (5th Cir. 1997) (dismissal-without-prejudice error guidance)
- Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383 (5th Cir. 1996) ("three strikes" rule application under § 1915(g))