Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-16-40141/USCOURTS-ca5-16-40141-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-40141

Summary Calendar

ELMER COX, 

 Plaintiff–Appellant,

versus

NUECES COUNTY, TEXAS; JIM KAELIN, Individually, 

 Defendants–Appellees.

****************************

THOMAS BURNSIDE, 

 Plaintiff–Appellant,

versus

NUECES COUNTY, TEXAS; JIM KAELIN, Individually, 

 Defendants–Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Texas

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

JERRY E. SMITH, Circuit Judge.

Elmer Cox and Thomas Burnside appeal a summary judgment on their 

42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims. Finding no error, we affirm. 

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 10, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-40141 Document: 00513711158 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/10/2016
No. 16-40141

2

I.

Cox and Burnside worked for the Nueces County Sheriff’s Department: 

Burnside in the Patrol Division, Cox in the DEA Taskforce. They were reassigned to the Nueces County Jail: Burnside on February 3, 2012, Cox on 

May 31, 2012. They contend the reassignments were based not on merit but 

on political disagreement; they allege that defendant Jim Kaelin, the sheriff, 

vengefully transferred them for failing to support his re-election.

In early November 2012, both plaintiffs filed separate (though nearly 

identically worded) actions, claiming that the reassignment violated their First 

Amendment rights. In late March 2013, both were fired from the Sheriff’s 

Department. After both complaints had survived motions to dismiss in 2014, 

they amended to include wrongful-termination claims and to add Kaelin as a 

defendant in addition to the county. 

Cox and Burnside also filed grievances with the Nueces County Civil 

Service Commission (the “Commission”), alleging only that they were subjected 

to adverse employment actions in violation of county rules prohibiting such 

actions on grounds of participating or failing to participate in political activity. 

The Commission consolidated the grievances and decided them against the 

plaintiffs in May 2013. The next day, both plaintiffs sued in state court for 

review of the decision. On March 12, 2015, the state court affirmed the Commission’s decision.1 

Armed with the state judgment, the defendants moved for summary 

judgment on grounds of res judicata and estoppel. The magistrate judge 

recommended granting the motion on both grounds, but the district court ruled 

 

1 See Order Affirming the Decision of the Nueces County Civil Service Commission, 

Burnside v. Nueces Cty. Civil Serv. Comm’n, No. 2013-DCV-2897-E (148th Dist. Ct., Nueces 

Cty., Tex., Mar. 12, 2015).

 Case: 16-40141 Document: 00513711158 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/10/2016
No. 16-40141

3

that the collateral-estoppel recommendation was moot given its finding of res 

judicata, so it granted summary judgment on only the claim-preclusion ground.

II.

The plaintiffs raise two objections to the summary judgment: first, that 

the district court applied the law of res judicata incorrectly, and second, that

res judicata was inappropriate because plaintiffs had deliberately abstained 

from litigating their federal claims in state court.2 Neither is persuasive.

A.

Because the claimed preclusive effect arises from a state-court judgment, 

we apply Texas law to determine whether res judicata is applicable.3 Under 

Texas law, res judicata requires proof of three elements: “(1) a prior final judgment on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction; (2) identity of parties 

or those in privity with them; and (3) a second action based on the same claims 

as were raised or could have been raised in the first action.”4 

Undeterred by that clear precedent, plaintiffs cited the federal standard 

for res judicata in their opening brief and formulated their arguments based 

on that standard. Reading those arguments as generously as possible, we can 

 

2 In their reply brief, Cox and Burnside abandon res judicata and instead posit that 

the district court incorrectly applied collateral estoppel. That is puzzling, given that the court 

specifically adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation on res judicata and explicitly 

disavowed any ruling on collateral estoppel. The reply brief never explains why collateral 

estoppel remains relevant. In any event, we will not consider the collateral-estoppel point, 

because “arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief . . . are waived.” United States 

v. Jackson, 426 F.3d 301, 304 n.2 (5th Cir. 2005); see also, e.g., Flex Frac Logistics, L.L.C. v. 

NLRB, 746 F.3d 205, 208 (5th Cir. 2014). 

3 See Kremer v. Chem. Constr. Corp., 456 U.S. 461, 463 (1982) (holding that 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1738 requires federal courts to apply state law when determining the preclusive effect of 

state-court judgments).

4 Amstadt v. U.S. Brass Corp., 919 S.W.2d 644, 652 (Tex. 1996) (citing Tex. Water 

Rights Comm’n v. Crow Iron Works, 582 S.W.2d 768, 771–72 (Tex. 1979)).

 Case: 16-40141 Document: 00513711158 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/10/2016
No. 16-40141

4

discern one main complaint, which combines elements (1) and (3) listed above: 

Because the Texas state court never decided their First Amendment claims, 

there is no valid judgment on the merits as regards those claims, so res judicata 

does not apply. This theory is meritless.5

It has been well established for more than twenty years that plaintiffs 

in Texas are required to bring, in the initial suit, all possible claims arising out 

of the same “transaction.” See Barr v. Resolution Tr. Corp., 837 S.W.2d 627, 

630–31 (Tex. 1992). “A subsequent suit will be barred if it arises out of the 

same subject matter of a previous suit and which through the exercise of diligence[ ] could have been raised in a prior suit.” Id. at 631. Thus, if Cox and 

Burnside could have raised their First Amendment claims in state court, and 

did not, they are barred from continuing to litigate them in another suit.

Plaintiffs appear aware of this requirement but try to avoid it by suggesting that they were unable to bring their First Amendment claims in state 

court because the state court’s review of the Commission’s finding was only to 

insure that there was substantial evidence supporting that finding.6 But

Texas precedent makes clear that constitutional claims can and should be 

brought in state-court reviews of civil service commission findings.7 

Indeed, this circuit has decided the issue. In Cooper v. City of Dallas, 

2008 WL 3380554 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 11, 2008), the same question arose: A 

plaintiff tried to prosecute two separate lawsuits, one a federal case bringing

 

5 Plaintiffs also suggest that res judicata cannot apply because they filed their federal 

claims first. They provide no authority for that, and we know of none.

6 Plaintiffs do not appear to contest that these claims arise out of the same transaction 

under Texas law.

7 See Turner v. City of Carrollton Civil Serv. Comm’n, 884 S.W.2d 889, 894 (Tex. 

App.—Amarillo 1994, no writ) (“[W]e hold that appellant was entitled to raise her constitutional claims in her suit seeking to set aside [the Civil Service Commission’s] ruling.”).

 Case: 16-40141 Document: 00513711158 Page: 4 Date Filed: 10/10/2016
No. 16-40141

5

various federal and state claims and the other an appeal to the Dallas Civil 

Service Commission. There, as here, the state court reached a final decision 

first. There, as here, defendants contended that res judicata foreclosed the 

federal suit after the state court had made its decision. And there, as here, 

plaintiff did not litigate her federal claims in the state-court proceeding, even 

though she could have. The district court entered summary judgment for the 

defendant, 2008 WL 3380554 at *1, and this circuit summarily affirmed “essentially for the reasons provided in the findings and recommendations of the 

magistrate judge” that the district court had adopted. Cooper v. City of Dall., 

402 F. App’x 891, 892 (5th Cir. 2010) (per curiam).

This case is indistinguishable from Cooper in all material respects. Cox 

and Burnside could and should have brought these claims in their state suit; 

their stated reasons for not doing so are inadequate to prevent res judicata. 

B.

Plaintiffs claim they “abstained” from litigating their already-existing 

federal claims in state court, warranting reversal. That notion is specious. A 

threshold requirement for any sort of abstention is that the plaintiffs inform 

the court of any request to abstain. See, e.g., Migra v. Warren City Sch. Dist. 

Bd. of Educ., 465 U.S. 75, 85 n.7 (1984). The putative abstaining court must 

be aware that it is abstaining from something. Id. No notice was given the 

state court here; the record is bereft of evidence that plaintiffs told it that they 

wished it only to decide state-law issues, preserving the federal claims for federal court. Indeed, the entire doctrine of abstention contemplates a situation

in which the plaintiff has brought both state-law and federal-law claims in 

state and federal court, and here, as we have seen, plaintiffs never brought any 

federal claims in a state forum. Abstention is inapposite. 

The summary judgment is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 16-40141 Document: 00513711158 Page: 5 Date Filed: 10/10/2016