Tramel R. Bracey v. City of Killeen, Texas And Police Chief Dennis Baldwin
417 S.W.3d 94
| Tex. App. | 2013Background
- Bracey, a Killeen police officer, was indefinitely suspended in December 2010 after an internal investigation alleging civil service rule violations.
- Chief Baldwin issued a written letter of disciplinary action detailing the alleged violations and supporting evidence from internal investigations.
- Bracey appealed to an independent hearing examiner, arguing Subchapter B of Government Code chapter 614 required written, signed complaints to trigger disciplinary action.
- The examiner found Bracey violated civil-service rules and sustained the indefinite suspension; Bracey argued the examiner failed to enforce Subchapter B.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the city; Bracey challenged the ruling on jurisdictional and Subchapter B grounds; central issue remained applicability of Subchapter B.
- The court ultimately held the examiner did not exceed her jurisdiction and Bracey’s declaratory claims were barred or moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Subchapter B require written, signed complaints to invalidate disciplinary action? | Bracey: Subchapter B prohibits discipline absent signed written complaints. | Baldwin/City: Subchapter B applies but does not nullify discipline absent formal complaints; other notices suffice. | Subchapter B does not automatically bar discipline; no jurisdictional prerequisite for reinstatement. |
| Did the examiner exceed jurisdiction by not reinstating Bracey under Subchapter B? | Bracey: examiner exceeded jurisdiction by ignoring Subchapter B’s prohibition. | City: examiner acted within statutory authority and remedies; no exceedance. | Examiner did not exceed jurisdiction; reinstatement not compelled solely by Subchapter B. |
| Are Bracey's declaratory-judgment claims barred or moot after the examiner's decision? | Bracey seeks UDJA relief to enforce Subchapter B and retroactive reinstatement. | City: immunity and mootness preclude retrospective relief; only prospective relief possible remains subject to the examiner’s decision. | The district court properly dismissed declaratory claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Athens v. MacAvoy, 353 S.W.3d 905 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2011, pet. denied) ( Subchapter B affects remedies but not outright jurisdiction)
- City of Pasadena v. Smith, 292 S.W.3d 14 (Tex. 2009) (jurisdictional limits and nondelegation considerations in review)
- City of Waco v. Kelley, 309 S.W.3d 536 (Tex. 2010) (limits of examiner’s authority; sanctions and remedies under the Act)
- White v. City of DeSoto, 288 S.W.3d 389 (Tex. 2009) (notice defects and remedial abatement vs. jurisdictional effect)
- Dubai Petroleum Co. v. Kazi, 12 S.W.3d 71 (Tex. 2000) (administrative-notice defenses in Dubai Dubai Dubai)
- PPG Indus., Inc. v. JMB/Houston Ctrs. Partners Ltd. P’ship, 146 S.W.3d 79 (Tex. 2004) (statutory interpretation and remedies framework)
- Harris County v. Sykes, 136 S.W.3d 635 (Tex. 2004) (jurisdictional review standards and sovereign considerations)