Miller v. Sam Houston State Univ, 19-20752

Audrey Miller, an SHSU assistant professor, was denied tenure in 2013; she filed EEOC and state charges alleging sex discrimination and retaliation and obtained SHSU records via Texas Public Information Act.
Miller applied to UHD in 2014, was rated highly by the search committee, but UHD reversed after Department Chair Jackson contacted SHSU Chair Wilson; Miller alleges the call led to retaliation and a nonhire.
Miller sued SHSU and TSUS, and separately UHD and UHS, in federal district court alleging Title VII and Equal Pay Act claims; the court administratively limited discovery early on.
At the initial case management conference the district judge sua sponte dismissed TSUS and UHS, made several comments indicating bias (e.g., “I will get credit for closing two cases when I crush you”), and repeatedly denied Miller’s requests to conduct depositions and broader discovery.
The district court later granted summary judgment for SHSU and UHD after denying Miller Rule 56(d) relief; Miller appealed.
The Fifth Circuit reversed the sua sponte dismissal and the summary judgments, held the district court abused its discretion by restricting discovery, and ordered reassignment of the cases on remand.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sua sponte dismissal of TSUS/UHS	Dismissal occurred without notice or chance to amend; Systems plausibly employers	Systems argued dismissal was proper	Reversed — court erred; plaintiff lacked fair opportunity to respond
Denial of reconsideration	Miller argued dismissal premature; presented facts showing Systems’ control	Defendants defended dismissal	Reversed — denying reconsideration was unfair and premature
Discovery restrictions	Miller sought depositions and records essential to oppose summary judgment	Defendants argued Miller already had voluminous pre-suit records	Reversed — district court abused discretion; limits impaired Miller’s substantial rights
Reassignment on remand	Judge’s comments and rulings show bias or appearance of bias; reassignment needed	Defendants did not rebut necessity	Granted — reassignment ordered to preserve appearance and fairness

Marshall v. Jerrico, Inc., 446 U.S. 238 (1980) (fairness and avoidance of apparent partiality are fundamental)
Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11 (1954) ("justice must satisfy the appearance of justice")
Carroll v. Fort James Corp., 470 F.3d 1171 (5th Cir. 2006) (sua sponte dismissal requires fair procedure and notice)
Davoodi v. Austin Indep. Sch. Dist., 755 F.3d 307 (5th Cir. 2014) (sua sponte dismissal improper without notice and opportunity to be heard)
Lozano v. Ocwen Fed. Bank, FSB, 489 F.3d 636 (5th Cir. 2007) (plaintiff’s best case may excuse prior notice in limited circumstances)
Jacquez v. Procunier, 801 F.2d 789 (5th Cir. 1986) (dismissing after only one chance to state a case is ordinarily unjustified)
McCoy v. Energy XXI GOM, LLC, [citation="695 F. App'x 750"] (5th Cir. 2017) (district court abused discretion by unduly restricting discovery)
Trevino v. Celanese Corp., 701 F.2d 397 (5th Cir. 1983) (liberal discovery encouraged in Title VII cases)
In re DaimlerChrysler Corp., 294 F.3d 697 (5th Cir. 2002) (standards for reassignment to preserve appearance of justice)