Court Opinion

ID: 9383748
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-31 00:00:27.809499+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:47.621260
License: Public Domain

Case: 19-60651        Document: 00516695710             Page: 1     Date Filed: 03/30/2023

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

                                                                               FILED
                                                                          March 30, 2023
                                      No. 19-60651                        Lyle W. Cayce
                                    Summary Calendar                           Clerk

   Andre Funches, Sr.,

                                                                   Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                            versus

   Mississippi Development Authority; Mississippi State
   Personnel Board; Glenn McCullough, In Their
   Individual Capacity; Jay McCarthy, In Their Individual
   Capacity; Jennifer Sledge, In Their Individual
   Capacity; Brian Daniel, In Their Individual Capacity,

                                                                Defendants—Appellees.

                 Appeal from the United States District Court for the
                           Southern District of Mississippi
                               USDC No. 3:18-cv-645

   Before Davis, Duncan, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
         Plaintiff-appellant, Andre Funches Sr., appeals the district court’s
   order granting the above-named Defendants’ motion for summary judgment

         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 19-60651        Document: 00516695710            Page: 2      Date Filed: 03/30/2023

                                        No. 19-60651

   dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint. Because we agree with the district court
   that Plaintiff’s action is barred by res judicata, we AFFIRM.
           Plaintiff, Andre Funches Sr., was employed by the Defendant
   Mississippi Development Authority (“MDA”) for seventeen years. After
   working in the Accounting and Finance, Grants Unit for approximately one
   year, he applied for the position of Bureau Manager I. However, MDA filled
   the position with an allegedly unqualified female under the age of forty. On
   June 21, 2018, Plaintiff filed suit, alleging that Defendants, MDA, and
   Mississippi State Personnel Board (“MSPB”), along with the individual
   defendants,1 violated his civil rights (the “2018 lawsuit”). Plaintiff alleged
   claims for age discrimination, sex discrimination, hostile work environment,
   improper hiring practices and retaliation, disparate impact, and equal
   protection in violation of Article VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
   and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”). He seeks actual
   and punitive damages, along with injunctive and declaratory relief,
   requesting that the court order MDA to promote him to the position of
   Bureau Manager I or to increase his pay to that of a Bureau Manager I.
           On October 16, 2016, Funches filed his first suit in the U.S. District
   Court for the Southern District of Mississippi (the “2016 lawsuit”). In that
   suit, he asserted the same claims against the same defendants2 and sought the
   same relief he seeks in this suit. Specifically, Plaintiff asserted claims for
   “Age        discrimination,   Gender/Sex        Discrimination,      Hostile     Work
   Environment, Improper Hiring Practices and Retaliation, Disparate
   Treatment, Disparate Impact and Equal Protection.” The district court in

           1
             Plaintiff sued Defendants Deanne Mosley, Glenn McCullough, Jay McCarthy,
   Jennifer Sledge, Barbara Pepper, and Brian Daniel in their individual capacities.
           2
            Plaintiff’s 2016 complaint also named Deanne Mosley, but she was never properly
   served and was dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m).

                                              2
Case: 19-60651         Document: 00516695710              Page: 3   Date Filed: 03/30/2023

                                          No. 19-60651

   the Southern District of Mississippi granted the Defendants’ motion for
   “dismissal/summary judgment.” Funches appealed the district court’s
   order, and this Court dismissed his appeal for failure to prosecute on January
   3, 2019.
          On October 17, 2018, Defendants in the present suit filed a motion for
   summary judgment arguing that because Plaintiff’s 2018 lawsuit asserts the
   same claims against the same parties advanced in his 2016 lawsuit, the
   present action is barred by the doctrines of res judicata and collateral
   estoppel.
          Under the doctrine of res judicata, “a final judgment on the merits of
   an action precludes the parties or their privies from relitigating issues that
   were or could have been raised in that action.”3 The test for res judicata has
   four elements: “(1) the parties are identical or in privity; (2) the judgment in
   the prior action was rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction; (3) the
   prior action was concluded by final judgment on the merits; and (4) the same
   claim or cause of action was involved in both actions.” 4
          The district court correctly concluded that all four elements are met
   here. The parties in both cases are identical or in privity. The final judgment
   on the merits in the 2016 lawsuit was rendered by a court of competent
   jurisdiction. Further, a comparison of the pleadings in the two cases reveal
   that the same claims or causes of action raised here were presented in the
   prior action. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s present lawsuit is barred by res judicata.

          3
              Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 94 (1980).
          4
            Comer v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc., 718 F.3d 460, 467 (5th Cir. 2013) (quoting Test
   Masters Educ. Servs., Inc. v. Singh, 428 F.3d 559, 571 (5th Cir. 2005)).

                                                3
Case: 19-60651    Document: 00516695710          Page: 4   Date Filed: 03/30/2023

                                  No. 19-60651

         For these reasons and those assigned in the district court’s thorough
   and careful opinion, we AFFIRM the district court order.

                                       4