Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-19-50324/USCOURTS-ca5-19-50324-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Edwards County, Texas
Appellee
Pamela Elliott
Appellee
Rachel Escamilla
Appellant

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-50324

RACHEL ESCAMILLA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

PAMELA ELLIOTT; EDWARDS COUNTY, TEXAS, 

 Defendants - Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Texas 

2:16-CV-121

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, STEWART, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Plaintiff-Appellant Rachel Escamilla appeals the district court’s 

summary judgment dismissal of her claims and denial of her motion seeking 

leave to amend her complaint. We AFFIRM in part, and REVERSE and 

REMAND in part.

I.

From October 2012 to early August 2014, Plaintiff-Appellant Rachel 

Escamilla (hereinafter, “Plaintiff” or “Escamilla”), a Hispanic woman, was 

employed by the Edwards County Sheriff’s Department, working as a jailer 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 4, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 19-50324 Document: 00515440544 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/04/2020
No. 19-50324

2

and dispatcher at the county jail.1 On August 5, 2014, Sheriff Elliott 

dishonorably discharged Escamilla from employment, contending she had 

unlawfully “looked up a license plate without a valid reason.”2 Denying any 

wrongdoing, Escamilla appealed her termination to the Texas Commission on 

Law Enforcement (TCOLE). Finding insufficient evidence of misconduct, the 

TCOLE ordered that Escamilla’s discharge status be changed from 

dishonorable to honorable. In addition to terminating her employment, 

Escamilla alleges that Sheriff Elliott unsuccessfully pursued criminal charges 

against her on two occasions. With the latter attempt, in spring 2016, Sheriff 

Elliott herself presented her claims to the grand jury, which issued a “no bill.” 

Believing herself to have been terminated, and subject to possible 

indictment, because she had engaged in constitutionally protected speech and 

is Hispanic, Escamilla filed suit against Sheriff Elliott, in the sheriff’s 

individual and official capacities, and Edwards County (collectively 

“Defendants”), on August 4, 2016. She claims Sheriff Elliot, a white female, 

“has a history of using her position in law enforcement to target Hispanic 

females and accuse them of crimes with little or no evidence,” in addition to 

discriminating against the Hispanic women who work in the Sheriff’s 

Department. Escamilla’s complaint alleges original jurisdiction under 28 

U.S.C. § 1331—with her action “being brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and 

1 The Sheriff’s Department employees included 5 deputies, as well as the 10 

jailer/dispatchers, and a jail administrator. The jailers’ duties are widespread, apparently 

including everything from jail security and maintenance to booking, feeding, and dispensing 

medicine to prisoners. Although the jail occasionally had 10–15 inmates at a given time, the 

usual occupancy, during Escamilla’s tenure was 7–10. In addition to working at the jail, 

Escamilla also worked as an EMT for the Edwards County EMS. Tamara Whitworth, who 

worked as the jail administrator prior to being demoted to jailer/dispatcher, did the same. 

Thus, Escamilla and Whitworth were co-workers both at the County jail and with County 

EMS. 

2 Apparently jail personnel (presumably those handling dispatch duties) were 

supposed to obtain this information only upon request from a deputy. 

Case: 19-50324 Document: 00515440544 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/04/2020
No. 19-50324

3

§1983”—and supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 over Texas law 

claims. The complaint also enumerates four “causes of action”: (1) 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1981 violations (denial of “equal rights and benefits because of her race”); (2) 

First Amendment violations; (3) Texas Constitutional Violations; and (4) 

Malicious Prosecution; and seeks injunctive and monetary relief, including 

actual and punitive damages, and attorney’s fees. 

On December 29, 2017, Defendants filed a summary judgment motion 

seeking dismissal of Escamilla’s claims. On September 6, 2018, the assigned 

magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation (“R&R”) that all of 

Escamilla’s claims, except for her request for injunctive relief under the Texas 

Constitution, be dismissed. Having considered the parties’ objections to the 

R&R, the district court approved and adopted it on September 28, 2018, 

granting summary judgment in Defendants’ favor relative to Escamilla’s 

federal law claims and her claim for monetary relief under the Texas 

Constitution. Thereafter, on March 18, 2019, considering that all of 

Escamilla’s federal law claims had been dismissed and numerous criminal 

matters remained pending on its docket, the district court exercised its 

discretion, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, to dismiss without prejudice the 

single remaining state law claim. In that same order, the district court also 

denied the motion for leave to file an amended complaint that Escamilla had 

filed, on September 19, 2018, seeking to remedy pleading deficiencies noted in 

the September 6, 2018 R&R. This appeal followed. 

II.

On appeal, Escamilla contends the district court erred in dismissing her 

42 U.S.C. § 1981 claim based on a determination that it was improperly 

pleaded as a “freestanding § 1981 damages claim,” rather than as a § 1981 

claim asserted against a state actor “through” the damages remedy provided 

Case: 19-50324 Document: 00515440544 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/04/2020
No. 19-50324

4

by 42 U.S.C. § 1983.3 Considering the record before us, we agree. In Jett v. 

Dallas Indep. School Dist., 491 U.S. 701 (1989), the Supreme Court held that 

the “action at law” provided by § 1983 (for the “deprivation of any rights, 

privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws”) is the 

exclusive federal damages remedy for a violation of the rights guaranteed 

by § 1981 when the claim is pressed against a local government actor.4 Thus, 

3 Regarding the discrimination prohibited by § 1981, the Supreme Court has 

concluded, based on the statute’s history, that “Congress intended to protect from 

discrimination identifiable classes of persons who are subjected to intentional discrimination 

solely because of their ancestry or ethnic characteristics.” Saint Francis Coll. v. Al-Khazraji,

481 U.S. 604, 613 (1987).

4 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and § 1983 provide, in pertinent part:

§ 1981. Equal rights under the law

(a) Statement of equal rights

All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States 

shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make 

and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to 

the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the 

security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, 

and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, 

licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other.

(b) “Make and enforce contracts” defined

For purposes of this section, the term “make and enforce 

contracts” includes the making, performance, modification, and 

termination of contracts, and the enjoyment of all benefits, 

privileges, terms, and conditions of the contractual relationship.

(c) Protection against impairment

The rights protected by this section are protected against 

impairment by nongovernmental discrimination and 

impairment under color of State law.

§ 1983 Civil action for deprivation of rights

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, 

regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the 

District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any 

citizen of the United States or other person within the 

jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, 

or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be 

Case: 19-50324 Document: 00515440544 Page: 4 Date Filed: 06/04/2020
No. 19-50324

5

plaintiffs must assert causes of action against local government actors under 

§ 1983 in order to obtain a monetary remedy for violations of civil rights 

protected by § 1981. In other words, plaintiffs cannot assert an independent

cause of action under § 1981 against state actors; the § 1981 right must instead

be asserted by means of the § 1983 procedural remedy.5 

Jett’s holding has resulted in the dismissal of claims asserting violations 

of § 1981 by local government actors when the pertinent provisions of the 

complaint alleging that violation do not clearly and expressly also allege

§1981’s requisite linkage with § 1983 by citing to § 1983. See Meyers v. La 

Porte Indep. Sch. Dist., 277 F. App'x 333, 335 (5th Cir. 2007) (“Because Meyers 

brought her § 1981 claim independently of her § 1983 claim, the district court 

did not err by granting summary judgment to LPISD.”); Felton v. Polles, 315 

F.3d 470, 482 (5th Cir. 2002) (where Count Three’s § 1983 claim asserted only 

Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment violations, and Count One’s § 1981 claim 

was independent and did not include § 1983, Count One failed to state a claim). 

In the instant appeal, the district court—citing this court’s decisions in 

Oden v. Oktibbeha Cty., Miss., 246 F.3d 458, 464 (5th Cir. 2001) (Oden could 

not maintain an independent cause of action under § 1981 against county and 

sheriff in his official capacity), Meyers, and Felton—found the allegations of 

Escamilla’s complaint insufficient to allow monetary relief to be sought against 

a government actor for a violation of the rights provided by § 1981.

liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or 

other proper proceeding for redress[.]

5 In the context of § 1981 violations by private actors, the Supreme Court has implied 

a damages remedy to effectuate the declaration of rights contained in that provision because 

Congress has not established a remedial scheme by statute. Jett, 491 U.S. at 731.

Case: 19-50324 Document: 00515440544 Page: 5 Date Filed: 06/04/2020
No. 19-50324

6

Accordingly, it dismissed Escamilla’s § 1981 claim, identified as the first cause 

of action, without further discussion. 

Escamilla argues the district court erred in doing so because paragraph 

43 of her complaint incorporates paragraphs 1–42 and paragraph 4 states that 

the action is “brought under 1981 and 1983.”6 Moreover, Escamilla argues, the 

6 The pertinent provisions of the original complaint state: 

III.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

4. This Court has original jurisdiction to hear this complaint under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1331, this action being brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and § 1983. 

V.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION: 42 U.S.C. § 1981 VIOLATIONS

43. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1–42 as if restated herein.

44. Plaintiff was denied equal rights and benefits under § 1981 because of her

race.

45. Defendants denied Plaintiff equal rights when, among other things, they

terminated Plaintiff and sought criminal indictment against her.

VI.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION: FIRST AMENDMENT VIOLATIONS

46. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1-42 as if restated herein.

47. Plaintiff engaged in protected speech as a citizen concerning a matter of public 

concern when she complained about misconduct and falsification of documents by 

Tammy Whitworth to Sheriff Elliott.

48. Defendants were motivated by Plaintiff’s speech to terminate her.

49. Sheriff Elliott is individually liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because free speech 

is a clearly established constitutional right, which precludes qualified immunity.

50. Edwards County is liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because it officially adopted 

and promulgated the decision to terminate Ms. Escamilla for engaging in protected 

speech. The County is also liable because the decision to terminate Ms. Escamilla 

was made by official to whom the County had delegated policy-making authority.

51. Defendants violated the United States Constitution when it terminated 

Plaintiff and sought criminal indictments for engaging in protected speech. 

Case: 19-50324 Document: 00515440544 Page: 6 Date Filed: 06/04/2020
No. 19-50324

7

Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson v. City of Shelby, 574 U.S. 10, 10–12 

(2014) (overturning Fifth Circuit precedent requiring plaintiffs to specifically 

invoke § 1983 in asserting a Fourteenth Amendment violation), as well as this 

court’s unpublished decision in Graham v. Bluebonnet Trails Co., 587 F. App’x 

205 (5th Cir. 2014), have cast doubt on the formalistic approach taken by 

earlier cases in this circuit. In Graham, the panel, though affirming on 

different grounds, expressed its “doubts about the district court’s denial of [the 

plaintiff's] section 1981 claim on the ground that she did not cite section 1983 

as the procedural vehicle for asserting such a claim, particularly after the 

Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson v. City of Shelby.” 587 F. App’x at 206

(internal citations omitted). In Johnson v. City of Shelby, the Graham panel 

explained, “the [Supreme] Court noted that the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure do not countenance dismissal of a complaint for imperfect statement 

of the legal theory supporting the claim asserted.” Id.

Escamilla’s complaint certainly is not a model of clarity.7 For instance,

although § 1983 is expressly cited within the “Second Cause of Action: First 

Amendment Violations” section, the same is not true for the “First Cause of 

Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1981 Violations” section. Nevertheless, paragraph 4 

identifies the “action,” not simply a single “claim” or “cause of action,” as “being 

brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and § 1983.” Furthermore, the asserted factual 

bases of the alleged § 1981 equal rights violations are sufficiently clear, and

7 Rules 8 and 12 of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require only that a complaint 

include sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to “state a claim to relief that is plausible 

on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 

550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). Nevertheless, litigants are, of course, encouraged to plead that 

which is appropriate, pertinent, and clarifying, relative to their claim, rather than merely 

providing only the bare minimum required by law. 

Case: 19-50324 Document: 00515440544 Page: 7 Date Filed: 06/04/2020
No. 19-50324

8

the law is well-settled that § 1983 provides the only federal damages remedy

against local government actors for violations of § 1981. Thus, considering 

Escamilla’s complaint against the backdrop of Johnson v. City of Shelby, we 

reverse the district’s court’s dismissal with prejudice of Escamilla’s claim 

seeking relief for alleged violations of her § 1981 rights. See also Smith v. 

Barrett Daffin Frappier Turner & Engel, LLP, 735 F. App’x 848, 854 (5th Cir. 

2018) (citing Johnson v. City of Shelby) (“It bears emphasizing that factual 

allegations alone may state a claim for relief—even without referencing the 

precise legal theory (or statute) upon which the plaintiff seeks relief.”).8 

Nevertheless, although we find reversal warranted in this instance, we 

emphasize that we have not determined that Escamilla’s allegations

necessarily otherwise state a plausible claim for relief or are sufficient to 

survive summary judgment. That will be for the district court to decide on 

remand. Rather, our narrow ruling regarding this claim is limited solely to the 

district court’s application of this pleading formality in the instant matter. 

III.

As her second cause of action, Escamilla contends that her termination 

(dishonorable discharge) from employment was, in part, retaliation for having 

exercised her First Amendment free speech rights. On appeal, Escamilla 

8 We note this court’s April 2020 unpublished decision in Montgomery-Smith v. 

Louisiana Dep’t of Health & Hosps., No. 18-30987, 2020 WL 1907546 at *3 (Apr. 17, 2020), 

wherein another panel of this court, citing Felton v. Polles, 315 F.3d 470, 482-83 (5th Cir. 

2002), affirmed the district court’s dismissal of that plaintiff’s § 1981 cause of action. The 

panel reasoned that the § 1983 claim asserted there lacked language incorporating the § 1981 

claim, and the § 1981 claim otherwise failed because it was pleaded independently of the 

§ 1983 cause of action. Montgomery-Smith is distinguishable and, as an unpublished opinion,

does not constitute controlling precedent under our rule of orderliness. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4;

United States v. Alcantar, 733 F.3d 143, 145 (5th Cir. 2013) (“Under our rule of orderliness, 

only an intervening change in the law (such as by a Supreme Court case) permits a 

subsequent panel to decline to follow a prior Fifth Circuit precedent.”) 

Case: 19-50324 Document: 00515440544 Page: 8 Date Filed: 06/04/2020
No. 19-50324

9

maintains the district court erred in dismissing her First Amendment 

retaliation claim, asserted pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, based on a 

determination that the statements in question were not made in Escamilla’s 

capacity as a “private citizen on a matter of public concern” and were not 

constitutionally protected speech. 

It is well settled that “public employees do not surrender all First 

Amendment rights by reason of their employment.” Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 

U.S. 410, 417 (2006). Rather, some speech, even if it “concerns information 

related to or learned through public employment,” deserves protection because 

“[g]overnment employees are often in the best position to know what ails the 

agencies for which they work.” Lane v. Franks, 573 U.S. 228, 236 (2014). Yet, 

“[g]overnment employers, like private employers, need a significant degree of 

control over their employees’ words and actions; without it, there would be 

little chance for the efficient provision of public services.” Malin v. Orleans 

Par. Commc’ns Dist., 718 F. App’x 264, 268 (5th Cir. 2018) (quoting Garcetti, 

547 U.S. at 418). In determining whether a public employee’s speech is 

protected by the First Amendment, courts must balance these countervailing 

interests. 

The Supreme Court has enunciated a two-step process to guide this 

inquiry:

The first step requires determining whether the 

employee spoke as a citizen on a matter of public 

concern. If the answer is no, the employee has no First 

Amendment cause of action based on his or her 

employer’s reaction to the speech. If the answer is yes, 

then the possibility of a First Amendment claim arises. 

The question becomes whether the relevant 

government entity had an adequate justification for 

treating the employee differently from any other 

member of the general public. This consideration 

reflects the importance of the relationship between the 

Case: 19-50324 Document: 00515440544 Page: 9 Date Filed: 06/04/2020
No. 19-50324

10

speaker’s expressions and employment. A government 

entity has broader discretion to restrict speech when 

it acts in its role as employer, but the restrictions it 

imposes must be directed at speech that has some 

potential to affect the entity’s operations.

Garcetti, 547 U.S. at 418.

The district court ended its inquiry at the first step upon finding that 

“Plaintiff’s speech was not ‘made by a private citizen about a matter of public 

concern.’” As explained by the district court, the controlling factor in this first 

step is whether Escamilla’s speech was made “pursuant to [her] duties” as a 

“jailer/dispatcher” for Edwards County. Garcetti, 547 U.S. at 421. While 

relevant, Escamilla’s “formal job description” and “the fact that the speech 

relates tangentially to the subject matter of [her] employment” are not 

dispositive. Davis v. McKinney, 518 F.3d 304, 312 (5th Cir. 2008).9

Escamilla contends that her termination was, in part, retaliation for 

having exercised her First Amendment free speech rights on four particular 

occasions: 

(1) On June 4, 2014, Plaintiff spoke on the phone to 

Joanna Reyes, a fellow jailer/dispatcher, and related 

that [then-Jail Administrator Tamara] Whitworth 

was not doing what she was supposed to be doing to 

book an inmate in the jail, particularly with respect to 

one inmate who was booked in the jail without a 

commitment (“the Booking Statement”)

9 According to Defendants’ interrogatory responses:

The duties of a jailer include booking, maintaining order in the jail, 

conducting observations of inmates, feed[ing] the inmates, assist[ing] with 

inmate medications, clean[ing] cells and other related duties. The duties of 

telecommunicators [dispatchers] receive and dispatch emergency and nonemergency police, fire and ambulance personnel. They answer emergency and 

non-emergency calls, gather information, and dispatch appropriate emergency 

services. 

Case: 19-50324 Document: 00515440544 Page: 10 Date Filed: 06/04/2020
No. 19-50324

11

(2) The next day, on June 5, 2014, Plaintiff talked 

about “Sheriff’s office information” [the same matter 

discussed on June 4] to Joanna Reyes (“the Office 

Information Statement”)

(3) On July 12, 2014, Plaintiff complained to Sheriff 

Elliott that Whitworth was circumventing jail 

procedures and falsifying documents to obtain medical 

treatment for her son who was an inmate in the jail at 

the time (“the Medical Treatment Statement”)

(4) On July 31, 2014, while working an EMS shift, 

Plaintiff told Whitworth how surprised she was that 

no one had been arrested for assaulting Deputy Jason 

Reed in an incident where Reed’s gun had been taken 

by the assailant and that Sheriff Elliott was “keeping 

it quiet” (“the Assault Statement”).

Examining these statements under applicable legal principles, we find no error 

in the district court’s determination. 

June 4-5, 2014—"Booking Statement” and “Office Information Statement”

Escamilla’s June 4, 2014 and June 5, 2014 statements are telephone 

conversations that she had, while on duty at the jail, with fellow 

jailor/dispatcher, Joanna Reyes. The statements concerned apparent 

discrepancies that Escamilla alleged she had observed in Whitworth’s 

handling of booking duties and related paperwork, in her role of job 

administrator, that could impact Escamilla’s and Reyes’ duties as jailers. The 

conversation occurred while Reyes was at home, off-duty, because she was not 

scheduled to work a shift on those days. According to Escamilla, two persons 

(two jailer/dispatchers or one jailer/dispatcher and the jail administrator 

(Whitworth)) worked each shift. Thus, it is logical that Escamilla apprised 

Reyes of ongoing work matters at a time when Escamilla was on duty but Reyes 

was not. 

Case: 19-50324 Document: 00515440544 Page: 11 Date Filed: 06/04/2020
No. 19-50324

12

Under these circumstances, the district court did not err in concluding 

that Escamilla had spoken to Reyes, a co-worker, as an employee, rather than

as a private citizen. Although Escamilla’s job did not necessarily demand that 

she make such complaints, the subject of the statements bore on her (and 

Reyes’) ability to carry out the duties that her job did require—booking and 

processing inmates. See Williams v. Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist., 480 F.3d 689, 

693–94 (5th Cir. 2007) (“Simply because [the plaintiff] wrote memoranda, 

which were not demanded of him, does not mean he was not acting within the 

course of performing his job.” Rather, because his speech was related to 

“information so that he could properly execute his duties,” it was not 

protected). Furthermore, that the subject of the conversation concerned a 

public employee’s job performance does not automatically make it a matter of 

“public concern.” See Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 149 (1983) (“To presume 

that all matters which transpire within a government office are of public 

concern would mean that virtually every remark—and certainly every 

criticism directed at a public official—would plant the seed of a constitutional 

case.”)

July 12, 2014—“Medical Treatment Statement”

Escamilla’s third alleged instance of protected speech is her July 12, 

2014 complaint to Sheriff Elliott regarding Whitworth’s proclaimed 

misconduct in administering medicine to inmates, i.e., that Whitworth was 

circumventing jail procedures and falsifying documents to obtain medical 

treatment for her son, who was an inmate of the jail at the time, rather than 

other inmates. The district court properly concluded that medical treatment 

of inmates is undoubtedly a topic of public concern, particularly when it 

involves allegations of corruption and misconduct. See Anderson v. Valdez, 

845 F.3d 580, 595 (5th Cir. 2017) (“Speech which discloses any evidence of 

corruption, impropriety, or other malfeasance on the part of . . . officials, in 

Case: 19-50324 Document: 00515440544 Page: 12 Date Filed: 06/04/2020
No. 19-50324

13

terms of content, clearly concerns matters of public import”) (internal citations 

omitted). Even so, the First Amendment does not protect speech made in the 

course of a public employee’s duties. Anderson, 845 F.3d at 595–98. 

Accordingly, the district court properly considered that this speech was:

[O]n-duty during her regular work hours, concerning 

information she learned at work, the situation reported affected 

Plaintiff’s ability to perform her official work duties [e.g., assist 

with inmate medications] as a jailer, and the information initially 

was reported privately, one-on-one, within her chain of-command, 

to the Sheriff who is the ultimate responsible authority for the 

administration of the jail in Edwards County. 

Furthermore, “when a public employee raises complaints or concerns up 

the chain of command at his workplace about his job duties, that speech is 

undertaken in the course of performing his job.” Davis, 518 F.3d at 313. But 

id. (If job concerns are also reported outside the workplace, the external 

communications are ordinarily made as a citizen rather than employee). As 

the district court noted, Escamilla “did not make an effort to illuminate the 

public of this conduct by reporting it to a person outside her chain of command, 

and therefore, they were not made . . . as a private citizen.” 

July 31, 2014—"Assault Statement”

Finally, the district court did not err in finding that Escamilla’s fourth 

alleged instance of protected speech—her comments to Whitworth concerning 

Sheriff Elliott’s handling of an assault of a deputy whose gun had been taken 

by the assailant—was not made as a private citizen on a matter of public 

concern. While public safety undoubtedly is a matter of public concern, other 

factors preclude these communications from being protected speech offered by 

a private citizen. Although the conversation occurred when both Escamilla and

Whitworth were off-duty from the jail, and instead working an EMS shift, it 

remained a conversation between Sheriff’s Department co-workers regarding 

Case: 19-50324 Document: 00515440544 Page: 13 Date Filed: 06/04/2020
No. 19-50324

14

their boss’s job performance, rather than a conversation with a member of the 

public. Lastly, the statement was not bolstered by any accompanying factual 

information, and thus constituted little more than a statement of unsupported 

personal opinion or speculation. 

IV.

Escamilla likewise appeals the district court’s dismissal of her malicious 

prosecution claim, as well as the district court’s denial of her motion requesting

leave to amend her complaint relative to that claim.10 We find no error in 

either ruling. 

The United States Constitution does not provide a “freestanding” right 

of freedom from malicious prosecution. Castellano v. Fragozo, 352 F.3d 939, 

942 (5th Cir. 2003). Thus, “causing charges to be filed without probable cause 

will not without more violate the Constitution.” Id. at 953. Instead, stating a 

malicious prosecution claim under federal law requires officials to have 

violated specific constitutional rights in connection with a malicious 

prosecution. Cuadra v. Houston Indep. School. Dist., 626 F.3d 808 (5th Cir. 

2010). As set forth in paragraphs 57–63 of her complaint, Escamilla’s malicious 

prosecution allegations fail to assert a federal constitutional violation.

Attempting to avoid dismissal of her claim, Escamilla emphasizes that 

paragraph 57 of her complaint incorporates paragraphs 1–56 by reference, and 

that paragraphs 37 and 38 allege that of the four persons terminated from the 

Sheriff’s Department for the same crime of (allegedly) unlawfully releasing 

confidential information, “Sheriff Elliott only pursued criminal charges against 

10 Escamilla’s appeal of the district court’s denial of her motion seeking leave to 

amend her complaint includes a proposed amendment of her § 1981 claim. Specifically, 

Escamilla sought to amend her complaint to include an express statement confirming that 

her § 1981 claim was asserted pursuant to § 1983’s procedural vehicle. Given our reversal 

of the district court’s dismissal of Escamilla’s § 1981 claims on grounds that it lacked the 

necessary linkage with § 1983, this aspect of her appeal is moot. 

Case: 19-50324 Document: 00515440544 Page: 14 Date Filed: 06/04/2020
No. 19-50324

15

the Hispanic female, Ms. Escamilla.” She adds: “The Sheriff’s actions were 

based on race. . . .” Referencing these allegations, Escamilla contends that the 

pleading alleges a “class-of-one” Fourteenth Amendment equal protection 

claim of the sort recognized in Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562, 

563 (2000), thus providing the requisite federal constitutional violation 

necessary for a federal malicious prosecution claim. In Village of Willowbrook, 

the plaintiff stated a viable equal protection constitutional claim based on 

allegations that the Village demanded a 33-foot easement from the plaintiff, 

but only a 15-foot easement from everyone else, and that the demand was 

“irrational and wholly arbitrary.”

The district court rejected this argument, first urged in response to 

Sheriff Elliott’s summary judgment motion, concluding the malicious 

prosecution allegations of the complaint fall short of providing adequate notice 

of Escamilla’s avowed “equal protection” constitutional claim. The district 

court additionally concluded that Escamilla had not timely sought to remedy 

the claim’s constitutional deficiencies by amendment, and thus denied

Escamilla’s motion requesting leave to amend her complaint. 

The parties dispute whether the proposed amendment is governed by 

Rule 15 or Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Dussouy v. Gulf 

Coast Inv. Corp., 660 F.3d 595, 597–98 (5th Cir. 1981) (Rule 15(a) 

amendments); S&W Enterprises, L.L.C. v. SouthTrust Bank of Alabama, NA, 

315 F.3d 533, 536 (5th Cir. 2003) (Rule 16(b) governs amendment of pleadings 

after a scheduling order deadline has expired). Nevertheless, they agree that

we review the district court’s denial of leave to amend for an abuse of 

discretion. Dussouy, 660 F.3d at 597; S&W Enterprises, L.L.C., 315 F.3d at 

535. They likewise agree that leave to amend a pleading may be justified 

where the party seeking amendment has engaged in undue delay. Dussouy,

660 F.3d at 598. Here, in denying the motion, the district court emphasized 

Case: 19-50324 Document: 00515440544 Page: 15 Date Filed: 06/04/2020
No. 19-50324

16

the “lengthy delay between filings” and that “[p]laintiffs should not await a 

court’s decision prior to attempting to amend a faulty complaint.” On the record 

before us, we find no abuse of discretion.

As noted by the district court, the motion for leave to amend was not filed 

until September 2018—two years after the original complaint was filed in 

August 2016. In this instance, a fair reading of the malicious prosecution cause 

of action described in paragraphs 57–63 of the complaint suggests nothing 

more at issue than an assertion of prosecution without probable cause. Indeed,

it is not even readily apparent from the August 2016 pleading that Escamilla 

intended to assert a federal malicious prosecution claim, as opposed to one 

asserted under state tort law. 

In any event, given that Sheriff Elliott’s narrow assessment of the scope 

of the claim was revealed in the December 2017 summary judgment motion,

and acknowledged by Escamilla in her February 2018 opposition 

memorandum, we cannot fault the discretionary decision of the district court 

to deny a motion to amend not filed until seven months later in obvious 

response to the magistrate judge’s issuance of a report and recommendation 

for dismissal thirteen days earlier. See Reliance Ins. Co. v. Louisiana Land & 

Expl. Co., 110 F.3d 253, 258 (5th Cir. 1997) (“District judges have the power to 

control their dockets by refusing to give ineffective litigants a second chance to 

develop their case.”) Had Escamilla promptly sought to amend her claim in 

response to deficiencies raised nine months earlier in Sheriff Elliott’s summary 

judgment motion, the issues in dispute might have been streamlined, resources 

likely would have been conserved, and final resolution might have been 

Case: 19-50324 Document: 00515440544 Page: 16 Date Filed: 06/04/2020
No. 19-50324

17

expedited.11 Furthermore, Escamilla’s motion for leave to amend offered no 

explanation for (or even acknowledgement of) the delay.

Finally, even if amendment had been allowed, dismissal of the malicious 

prosecution still would have been warranted. As noted by the district court’s 

order, Escamilla has never alleged (or sought to allege) that she was arrested 

or formally charged with a crime. Sheriff Elliott’s attempts to convince the 

grand jury to issue an indictment failed and Escamilla was never charged by 

bill of information. Thus, it is not apparent that the “institution of prosecution”

element of a malicious prosecution claim could have been satisfied.

V.

As stated herein, we conclude that Plaintiff-Appellant Escamilla’s 

August 2016 complaint sufficiently links her allegations of a violation of the 

rights protected by 42 U.S.C. § 1981 to the procedural remedy provided by 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. Accordingly, we REVERSE and REMAND that portion of the 

district court’s judgment for further proceedings consistent with this ruling. 

We otherwise AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.

11 To be sure, the “more than 1,800 pending criminal defendants on its docket that 

take priority over all civil matters” referenced by the district court in explaining the decision 

to dismiss the single remaining state law claim without prejudice, rather than continuing to 

exercise supplemental jurisdiction, more than adequately demonstrate the importance of 

efficient use of judicial resources. 

Case: 19-50324 Document: 00515440544 Page: 17 Date Filed: 06/04/2020