Court Opinion

ID: 9910492
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-15 19:00:38.730876+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:53:06.632778
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-50498         Document: 00517003217             Page: 1      Date Filed: 12/15/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________                               United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                          Fifth Circuit

                                       No. 23-50498
                                                                                        FILED
                                                                                December 15, 2023
                                      ____________
                                                                                      Lyle W. Cayce
   Michael R. Hamilton,                                                                    Clerk

                                                                     Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                             versus

   City of Lott, Texas,

                                                Defendant—Appellee.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                           for the Western District of Texas
                               USDC No. 6:22-CV-1292
                      ______________________________

   Before Wiener, Stewart, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Plaintiff-Appellant Michael Hamilton sued the City of Lott, Texas, for
   retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Texas Whistleblower Act. The
   district court adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation that the City
   of Lott’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim be granted
   in its entirety. Hamilton objected, moving for remand of the state law claim
   after dismissal of the federal claim, but the district court exercised its

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-50498        Document: 00517003217        Page: 2   Date Filed: 12/15/2023

                                    No. 23-50498

   discretion to retain supplemental jurisdiction. Concluding that the district
   court abused its discretion in exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the
   state law claim once the federal claim was dismissed, we VACATE in part
   and REMAND.
                                         I.
          Hamilton was the longtime police chief of the City of Lott in Falls
   County, Texas. On July 11, 2022, Hamilton reported to the county district
   attorney what he believed to be one or more violations of law by Lott Mayor
   Sue Tacker and city council members. He provided the mayor and council
   with a written copy of that report. On the same evening, the council voted to
   entirely defund the police department. A second vote to eliminate the police
   department was held on August 22, 2022, and Hamilton was given until noon
   the next day to turn over his keys and equipment.
          Hamilton filed suit in the McLennan County district court, asserting
   claims of First Amendment retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and violation
   of the Texas Whistleblower Act. He sought declaratory relief, an injunction,
   and damages under his First Amendment retaliation claim. He also sought a
   civil penalty to be paid to the state of Texas by Mayor Tacker in the event of
   a Texas Whistleblower Act violation. The City of Lott removed the case to
   federal court. After Hamilton filed an amended complaint, the City of Lott
   filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of
   Civil Procedure.
          The motion to dismiss was referred to a magistrate judge, who issued
   a Report and Recommendation that the motion be granted and that both
   Hamilton’s claims be dismissed. The district court adopted the magistrate
   judge’s recommendation in full, over Hamilton’s objections, which included
   a request to remand the state claim to state court. Hamilton timely appealed.
                                        II.

                                         2
Case: 23-50498      Document: 00517003217           Page: 3    Date Filed: 12/15/2023

                                     No. 23-50498

          On appeal, Hamilton does not challenge the dismissal of his First
   Amendment retaliation claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Instead, he argues
   that the district court abused its discretion by failing to remand the remaining
   state law claim because the case was still in its infancy and involved a complex
   issue of law.
          The issue before us is whether the district court abused its discretion
   by retaining supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim after the
   federal claim had been dismissed. Mendoza v. Murphy, 532 F.3d 342, 346 (5th
   Cir. 2008) (citing Parker & Parsley Petrol. Co. v. Dresser Indus., 972 F.2d 580,
   585 (5th Cir. 1992)).
          Our review is guided by the factors set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1367. That
   statute authorizes a court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction
   over a state law claim if: (1) the claim raises a novel or complex issue of state
   law, (2) the claim substantially predominates over the claim or claims over
   which the district court has original jurisdiction, (3) the district court has
   dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, or (4) in
   exceptional circumstances, there are other compelling reasons for declining
   jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). We are also guided by “considerations of
   judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.” Mendoza, 532 F.3d at
   346 (citing McClelland v. Gronwaldt, 155 F.3d 507, 519 (5th Cir. 1998),
   overruled on other grounds by Arana v. Ochsner Health Plan, 338 F.3d 433 (5th
   Cir. 2003)). Our general rule is to dismiss state law claims when the federal
   claims to which they are pendent are dismissed. Parker, 972 F.2d at 585
   (citing Wong v. Stripling, 881 F.2d 200, 204 (5th Cir. 1989)). However, we
   review each claim “on a case-by-case basis, and no single factor is
   dispositive.” Mendoza, 532 F.3d at 346. Here, the second and third factors
   weigh in favor of declining supplemental jurisdiction.          After the First
   Amendment claim was dismissed, only the state whistleblower claim
   remained, meaning that no claims invoked the court’s original jurisdiction.

                                          3
Case: 23-50498      Document: 00517003217           Page: 4     Date Filed: 12/15/2023

                                     No. 23-50498

   See Mendoza, 532 F.3d at 346; see also Enochs v. Lampasas Cnty., 641 F.3d 155,
   159 (5th Cir. 2011) (“[T]he Texas state law claims predominate over the non-
   existent federal claims.”). The statutory factors therefore weigh moderately
   in favor of remand.      And, although these factors are not dispositive,
   additional concerns weigh in favor of declining supplemental jurisdiction.
          Considerations of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and
   comity support reversal of the district court’s decision to exercise
   supplemental jurisdiction. The First Amendment claim was dismissed at an
   “early stage” of the proceeding, so the district court has “a powerful reason
   to choose not to continue to exercise jurisdiction.” Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v.
   Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 351 (1988). Moreover, no answer has been filed, no
   discovery has been conducted, and no scheduling order has been entered. See
   Parker, 972 F.3d at 586; Enochs, 641 F.3d at 159 (“There would be no need
   for either party to duplicate any research, discovery, briefing, hearings, or
   other trial preparation work, because very little had been done at that
   point.”). Finally, dismissal would serve the important interests of federalism
   and comity, because federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction that
   “often are not as well equipped for determinations of state law as are state
   courts.” Parker, 972 F.2d at 588-89. The overall balance of the common law
   factors therefore weighs heavily in favor of remand.
          The district court does not appear to have considered any of these
   factors when it chose to retain supplemental jurisdiction. It merely stated
   that, “after considering the relevant law and arguments of the parties, the
   Court retains jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims under 28 U.S.C.
   §1367(c).” When, as here, a consideration of the statutory and common law
   factors favor remand and there is little in the record that supports the district
   court’s decision to retain supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim,
   we conclude that the district court abused its discretion.

                                          4
Case: 23-50498     Document: 00517003217         Page: 5   Date Filed: 12/15/2023

                                  No. 23-50498

                                      III.
         We VACATE the district court’s decision as to the state law claim
   and REMAND with instructions for the district court to remand the Texas
   state law claims to the Texas state court from which the case was removed.

                                        5