Philip Klein v. Layne Walker, 708 F. App'x 158

Background

Philip Klein, a blogger/private investigator, sued Judge Walker in Texas state court alleging retaliation for disparaging blog posts; he initially sought declaratory and injunctive relief, then pursued only a § 1983 free‑speech retaliation claim for damages.
Walker moved to dismiss asserting judicial and sovereign immunity; he retired and filed a plea to the jurisdiction and for summary judgment on immunity grounds, arguing injunctive/declaratory relief claims were moot.
The state court granted Walker’s motion to dismiss and motion for summary judgment; Klein filed no further pleadings in state court and shortly thereafter filed an essentially identical § 1983 action in federal court.
In federal court, Walker asserted res judicata, judicial immunity, and failure to state a claim; the magistrate allowed Klein leave to amend but limited any amendment to claims previously dismissed in state court.
Klein filed a Second Amended Complaint that included a civil‑conspiracy allegation; Walker moved for summary judgment on res judicata, moved to strike, and submitted the certified state court record showing no further state‑court action by Klein.
The district court concluded the state judgment was final for res judicata purposes, struck claims exceeding the limited leave to amend, denied further amendment, and granted summary judgment; the Fifth Circuit affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the state court order was a final judgment on the merits for claim preclusion	Klein: dismissal was jurisdictional/immunity plea and not a final merits disposition of his § 1983 claim; Walker never amended motion to address § 1983	Walker: state dismissal on immunity operates as a merits dismissal under Texas law; the order disposed of the only remaining claim and parties	Final judgment on the merits; res judicata bars Klein’s federal duplicative § 1983 claims
Whether the district court properly relied on Texas law to determine preclusive effect	Klein: (implicit) federal court should not give preclusive effect if order ambiguous	Walker: federal court must apply Texas preclusion law to a Texas judgment	Court applied Texas law (Lehmann standard) and found finality based on record and parties’ conduct
Whether the civil‑conspiracy allegation in Second Amended Complaint was permissible	Klein: conspiracy allegations either support existing § 1983 claim or are new facts that should be allowed	Walker: conspiracy allegations are barred by res judicata or exceed the limited leave to amend	Court struck conspiracy claim to the extent it reused barred allegations and denied leave to add new claims
Whether the district court abused discretion by denying further leave to amend	Klein: denial was improper given pro‑se/informal posture and desire to add allegations	Walker: magistrate limited amendments; Klein failed to show abuse; arguments inadequately briefed	No abuse of discretion; failure to adequately brief alternative arguments forfeited them

Key Cases Cited

Weaver v. Texas Capital Bank N.A., 660 F.3d 900 (5th Cir. 2011) (apply state preclusion law to state judgments)
Amstadt v. U.S. Brass Corp., 919 S.W.2d 644 (Tex. 1996) (elements of claim preclusion under Texas law)
Norris v. Hearst Tr., 500 F.3d 454 (5th Cir. 2007) (applying Texas res judicata standard)
Flores v. Edinburg Consol. Indep. Sch. Dist., 741 F.2d 773 (5th Cir. 1984) (immunity dismissal treated as merits dismissal for res judicata)
Lehmann v. Har‑Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191 (Tex. 2001) (finality requires disposition of all claims and parties; court’s intent governs)
M.O. Dental Lab. v. Rape, 139 S.W.3d 671 (Tex. 2004) (parties’ treatment of an order can establish finality)
Barr v. Resolution Tr. Corp. ex rel. Sunbelt Fed. Sav., 837 S.W.2d 627 (Tex. 1992) (subsequent suit barred if it arises from same subject matter and could have been litigated earlier)
Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222 (5th Cir. 1993) (issues inadequately briefed are forfeited)