Maria Saldana-Fountain v. USA
693 F. App'x 295
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background:
- Maria Saldana-Fountain was hired as a medical technician at William Beaumont Army Medical Center in Jan 2007 and filed an EEOC complaint in Oct 2007 alleging Title VII and Rehabilitation Act violations after alleged discriminatory remarks and termination.
- An EEOC administrative judge found no actionable discrimination; the EEOC affirmed on Oct 5, 2010 and notified her of a 90-day right to sue in federal court.
- Saldana-Fountain did not file suit until February 2015 — roughly 4.5 years after the EEOC decision.
- She proceeded pro se and sued the United States, WBAMC, Department of the Army, Enrique Chavez Jr., and the Chavez Law Firm; she sought default judgments against defendants and advanced state-law claims against the Chavez Defendants based on alleged malpractice/failures to inform her about the 90-day deadline.
- The district court denied default judgments, dismissed federal claims as time-barred (declining equitable tolling/estoppel), and declined supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims; it also found no improper ex parte communications or filing-date manipulation.
- The Fifth Circuit affirmed, agreeing default was inappropriate (defendants moved to dismiss), equitable tolling/estoppel was unwarranted for attorney error, and supplemental jurisdiction was rightly declined because federal and state claims lacked a common nucleus of operative fact.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Default judgment against defendants | Defendants failed to defend; court should enter default | Defendants filed motions to dismiss, which constitute defense | Denied — motions to dismiss showed defense; default inappropriate |
| Timeliness of Title VII / Rehabilitation Act claims | Delay caused by attorney mistake; equitable tolling or estoppel should apply | Claims untimely; attorney error does not justify equitable tolling/estoppel | Denied tolling/estoppel — claims untimely; attorney error insufficient |
| Supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims vs Chavez Defendants | State claims arise from same dispute and should be heard with federal claims | State claims concern separate malpractice/failure-to-inform events years later; not same nucleus | Declined supplemental jurisdiction — no common nucleus of operative fact |
| Allegations of judicial impropriety (ex parte communications, filing-date change, withheld documents) | Court engaged in ex parte communications, changed filing date, and withheld documents | No record evidence supports these claims; any filing-date discrepancy doesn't affect timeliness | Rejected — no evidence of impropriety; filing-date dispute irrelevant to outcome |
Key Cases Cited
- Doe ex rel. Magee v. Covington Cty. Sch. Dist. ex rel. Keys, 675 F.3d 849 (5th Cir. 2012) (standard of review for dismissal reviewed de novo)
- Granger v. Aaron’s, Inc., 636 F.3d 708 (5th Cir. 2011) (attorney error generally does not warrant equitable tolling)
- DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332 (2006) (federal-question jurisdiction may authorize supplemental jurisdiction over state claims sharing a common nucleus of operative fact)
- United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715 (1966) (test for when federal court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims)