Miller v. University of Houston, 986 F.3d 880

Background

Audrey Miller, a tenure-track SHSU psychology professor, was denied tenure in 2013 for alleged lack of collegiality; she filed EEOC/Texas Workforce Commission charges and obtained SHSU records via the Texas Public Information Act.
Miller interviewed for faculty positions at UHD in 2014, was ranked highly by the search committee, but UHD rescinded an offer after a phone call between UHD’s department chair and SHSU’s chair; UHD later hired lower‑scoring candidates.
Miller sued SHSU and TSUS (one action) and UHD and UHS (separate action) alleging sex discrimination, retaliation, and equal pay claims; the district court handled the suits jointly but did not formally consolidate them.
At the initial case management conference the district judge sua sponte dismissed TSUS and UHS with prejudice, made multiple remarks indicating bias (e.g., “I will get credit for closing two cases when I crush you”), and repeatedly denied Miller’s discovery requests including depositions of key witnesses.
The district court limited discovery severely, attended/participated in Miller’s deposition, allowed only one two‑hour deposition after summary judgment briefing, and later granted summary judgment to SHSU and UHD.
The Fifth Circuit reversed the sua sponte dismissal and the summary judgments, held the district court abused its discretion on discovery, and remanded with directions to reassign the cases to a different district judge.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sua sponte dismissal of TSUS and UHS	Miller lacked notice and chance to respond or amend; dismissal with prejudice was premature	Systems argued dismissal was proper because they lacked meaningful involvement	Reversed — dismissal was procedurally unfair; plaintiff not given adequate notice/opportunity to respond or amend
Denial of reconsideration of dismissal	Forcing Miller to move for reconsideration deprived her of a fair opportunity to oppose dismissal	Denial appropriate because claims against Systems lacked merit	Reversed — denial compounded the unfair sua sponte dismissal process
Repeated discovery denials (depositions, written discovery)	Court’s near‑blanket refusals prevented Miller from obtaining evidence essential to oppose summary judgment (e.g., content of phone call between chairs)	Defendants asserted Miller already had voluminous pre‑suit records and was not prejudiced	Reversed — district court abused discretion; discovery limits were arbitrary and affected Miller’s substantial rights
Reassignment on remand	Judge’s comments and peremptory rulings created appearance of partiality and risk of inability to set aside prior views	Defendants argued reassignment unnecessary and inefficient	Ordered — reassignment warranted to preserve appearance of justice; remand to a different judge

Key Cases Cited

Marshall v. Jerrico, Inc., 446 U.S. 238 (affirming need to avoid even the appearance of partiality in judicial proceedings)
Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11 ("justice must satisfy the appearance of justice")
Carroll v. Fort James Corp., 470 F.3d 1171 (sua sponte dismissal requires notice and opportunity to respond)
Davoodi v. Austin Indep. Sch. Dist., 755 F.3d 307 (reversal where plaintiff had no notice or chance to be heard before sua sponte dismissal)
Lozano v. Ocwen Fed. Bank, FSB, 489 F.3d 636 (plaintiff must have opportunity to allege best case before sua sponte dismissal)
Jacquez v. Procunier, 801 F.2d 789 (one chance to state case ordinarily insufficient before dismissal)
Deal v. State Farm County Mut. Ins. Co., 5 F.3d 117 (two‑step employer test examines right to control and economic realities)
Muhammad v. Dallas Cnty. Cmty. Supervision & Corrs. Dept., 479 F.3d 377 (fact‑specific employer inquiry often reserved for summary judgment)
McCoy v. Energy XXI GOM, LLC, [citation="695 F. App'x 750"] (district court abused discretion by refusing essential discovery; reversed)
In re DaimlerChrysler Corp., 294 F.3d 697 (reassignment standards and tests for appearance of fairness)
United States v. Microsoft Corp., 56 F.3d 1448 (test for whether judge’s role might cause objective observer to question impartiality)
Trevino v. Celanese Corp., 701 F.2d 397 (broad discovery in Title VII cases)
Coughlin v. Lee, 946 F.2d 1152 (district courts must adhere to the liberal spirit of discovery rules)
Fielding v. Hubert Burda Media, Inc., 415 F.3d 419 (reversal where discovery ruling was arbitrary or clearly unreasonable)