Petrina Thompson v. Dallas City Attorney's Office
913 F.3d 464
5th Cir.2019Background
- Thompson, a former Dallas City Attorney Office lawyer, sued the City in federal court for workplace harassment, retaliation, and discrimination; she had separately sued in Texas state court on related state-law claims arising from the same facts.
- The Texas state court later dismissed Thompson’s state suit as time-barred (statute of limitations).
- The City argued in federal court that the state-court limitations dismissal precluded Thompson’s federal suit under res judicata; the district court dismissed the federal suit on that basis.
- On appeal Thompson argued (1) the state-court limitations dismissal was not a judgment on the merits and therefore not preclusive (relying on Henson), and (2) the City violated her due process by raising res judicata for the first time in a reply brief.
- The Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding Texas preclusion law (as applied via the Full Faith and Credit Act) bars Thompson’s federal claims and that Thompson received adequate opportunity to respond to the res judicata argument.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a state-court dismissal on statute-of-limitations grounds is a final judgment on the merits for res judicata purposes | Thompson: Such a limitations dismissal is not an adjudication on the merits and therefore not preclusive (citing Henson) | City: Under Texas law, a limitations-based dismissal is a final judgment on the merits and thus preclusive | Court: Texas law treats limitations dismissals as final on the merits; res judicata bars Thompson’s federal suit |
| Whether Fifth Circuit’s Henson decision controls over Supreme Court Full Faith and Credit precedent | Thompson: Henson permits relitigation in federal court despite state limitations dismissal | City: Henson conflicts with Supreme Court precedent (McCurry/Kremer) and is not binding | Court: Henson contradicted earlier Supreme Court law and subsequent precedent; it is a nonprecedential outlier and not followed |
| Whether federal courts must apply state preclusion law when asked to give effect to state judgments | Thompson: Implicitly urges federal standards (via Henson) | City: Full Faith and Credit Act requires federal courts to apply the preclusive effect that state courts would give | Court: Federal courts must apply the res judicata rules of the state that rendered the judgment (Full Faith and Credit) |
| Whether the district court violated due process by considering res judicata raised in a reply brief | Thompson: City raised res judicata too late; denial of fair notice | City: Reply raised res judicata only after state judgment issued; Thompson was given opportunity to respond | Court: No due process violation; district court gave Thompson an adequate opportunity to respond |
Key Cases Cited
- Henson v. Columbus Bank & Trust Co., 651 F.2d 320 (5th Cir. 1981) (panel held state limitations dismissal not preclusive in federal court; treated as an outlier in this opinion)
- Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90 (1980) (Full Faith and Credit Act requires federal courts to give state-court judgments the same preclusive effect they have in the originating State)
- Kremer v. Chem. Constr. Corp., 456 U.S. 461 (1982) (reaffirmed that § 1738 commands federal courts to accept state preclusion rules)
- Hogue v. Royse City, 939 F.2d 1249 (5th Cir. 1991) (Texas summary-judgment dismissals are final judgments with preclusive effect)
- In re Hansler, 988 F.2d 35 (5th Cir. 1993) (a take-nothing limitations judgment is a final judgment on the merits under Texas law)
- Migra v. Warren City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 465 U.S. 75 (1984) (federal courts must respect state-court preclusive determinations)
- Sims v. City of Madisonville, 894 F.3d 632 (5th Cir. 2018) (reiterating that federal courts give state judgments the same preclusive effect they would receive in the rendering state)