460 F. App'x 376
5th Cir.2012Background
- Phelan, a tenure-track Texas Tech professor, received a non-reappointment and terminal contract before tenure.
- He sued Texas Tech and several university officials in state courts; federal claims were later added after removal.
- The case was removed to federal court on the defendants’ incorporation of federal claims.
- Phelan asserted §1983 claims alleging false affidavits and suppressed evidence caused state-court summary judgments.
- The district court dismissed the §1983 claim and remanded remaining state-law claims; questions about 101.106(e) remained.
- On appeal, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of §1983 and remand ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §1983 provides a remedy for deprivation of federal rights here | Phelan alleges defendants deprived rights by false affidavits and suppression | No federal right identified; state proceedings decisions not actionable | §1983 claim dismissed for lack of a protected federal right |
| Seventh Amendment jury-trial right as a §1983 claim basis | Seventh Amendment right to jury trial violated by state-court ruling | Jury trial right not incorporated against the states | No §1983 claim based on jury-trial right; not incorporated against the states |
| Due-process claim under §1983 | Due process rights were violated by conduct in proceedings | No protected life, liberty, or property interest identified; claims fail | Procedural due-process claim inadequately pleaded; no protected interest identified |
| Whether district court erred in remanding remaining state-law claims under §101.106(e) | District court abused by remanding, not dismissing all claims | Remand proper when federal claims are eliminated; discretion to remand exercised properly | District court did not abuse discretion in remanding; 101.106(e) not required to dismiss all state-law claims |
| Effect of preclusion on due-process issue | Preclusion should bar reviewing the same due-process issue | State court already held no protected interest; issue preclusion applies | Issue preclusion bars collateral attack on Texas state court's due-process ruling |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonald v. City of Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 3020 (2010) (Seventh Amendment right not fully incorporated against the states)
- Frame v. City of Arlington, 657 F.3d 215 (5th Cir. 2011) (pleading standards for Rule 12(b)(6) motions (Iqbal standard))
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (standard for plausibility in pleading)
- Amacker v. Renaissance Asset Mgmt. LLC, 657 F.3d 252 (5th Cir. 2011) (de novo review of Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal; pleading standard)
- Monk v. Huston, 340 F.3d 279 (5th Cir. 2003) (due process requires protected interest to invoke §1983)
- Baldwin v. Daniels, 250 F.3d 943 (5th Cir. 2001) (due process requires protected life, liberty, or property)
- Hook v. Morrison Milling Co., 38 F.3d 776 (5th Cir. 1994) (remand discretion when federal claims eliminated)
- Barr v. Resolution Trust Corp. ex rel. Sunbelt Fed. Sav., 837 S.W.2d 627 (Tex. 1992) (issue preclusion; Texas law on relitigation)
- Eagle Props., Ltd. v. Scharbauer, 807 S.W.2d 714 (Tex. 1990) (preclusion and collateral estoppel principles)