Court Opinion

ID: 9388208
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-20 00:00:31.805395+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:18.840858
License: Public Domain

Case: 21-20302     Document: 00516717667         Page: 1    Date Filed: 04/19/2023

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

                                                                                FILED
                                                                            April 19, 2023
                                  No. 21-20302                             Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                Clerk

   Alfred Dewayne Brown,

                                                           Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                      versus

   City of Houston, Texas; Harris County, Texas; Breck
   McDaniel; Ted C. Bloyd; D. L. Robertson,

                                                        Defendants—Appellees.

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Southern District of Texas
                           USDC No. 4:17-CV-1749

   Before Wiener, Graves, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.
   Jacques L. Wiener, Jr., Circuit Judge:
         We previously certified a question to the Texas Supreme Court in this
   matter, asking whether the Tim Cole Act, Texas Civil Practice and Remedies
   Code §§ 103.001 et seq., bars maintenance of a federal lawsuit involving the
   same subject matter that was filed before the claimant received compensation
   under the Tim Cole Act. Having received a response from the Texas
   Supreme Court, we AFFIRM the judgment below.
Case: 21-20302           Document: 00516717667            Page: 2       Date Filed: 04/19/2023

                                          No. 21-20302

                            I. Facts and Procedural Background
           Brown spent more than twelve years in state prison—including ten on
   death row—because of his wrongful conviction for the murders of a Houston
   police officer and a store clerk. In 2015, the state district court granted the
   Harris County District Attorney’s motion to dismiss the charges against
   Brown, and Brown was released from prison.
           In 2016, Brown filed a petition with the Texas Office of the
   Comptroller for compensation under the Tim Cole Act, which provides state
   compensation to individuals who have been wrongfully convicted of state
   crimes in state courts.1 His petition was denied because (1) it was not based
   on a finding that Brown was “actually innocent,” (2) Brown had not received
   a pardon, and (3) the district attorney had not filed a qualifying motion. In
   March 2019, following an investigation into Brown’s claim of actual
   innocence, the Harris County District Attorney filed a motion to dismiss the
   charges against Brown, which the state court granted. In May 2019, Brown
   filed another petition for compensation under the Tim Cole Act. It too was
   denied. Following that rejection, Brown sought a writ of mandamus from the
   Texas Supreme Court.2 In December 2020, the Texas Supreme Court
   overturned the Comptroller’s decision and ordered the State of Texas to pay
   Brown the compensation he was owed under the Tim Cole Act.3 The State
   then paid Brown’s Tim Cole Act claim.

           1
            TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 103.001(a). Under this statute, “[a]
   person is entitled to compensation if: (1) the person has served in whole or in part a
   sentence in prison under the laws of this state; and (2) the person . . . has received a full
   pardon on the basis of innocence for the crime for which the person was sentenced.” Id.
           2
            For a more extensive background of the case, see In re Brown, 614 S.W.3d 712,
   713–16 (Tex. 2020).
           3
               Id. at 723–24.

                                                2
Case: 21-20302              Document: 00516717667         Page: 3      Date Filed: 04/19/2023

                                          No. 21-20302

          While Brown was pursuing compensation under the Tim Cole Act, he
   brought a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action in federal district court in June 2017.4
   Brown alleged that the City of Houston, Harris County, and various state
   officials had violated his Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights
   because of his wrongful prosecution, conviction, and detention in state
   custody.5 Some claims survived a motion to dismiss, and others were
   dismissed without prejudice.6 Defendants-Appellees eventually moved for
   summary judgment.
          In May 2021, the federal district court granted summary judgment in
   favor of Defendants-Appellees and dismissed the remainder of Brown’s
   § 1983 claims with prejudice.7 In doing so, the court explained that “[a]
   state’s payment for wrongful conviction under the [Tim Cole] Act provides
   immunity to suits against state and local governmental entities and
   employees seeking additional payment for the same wrongful conviction.”8
   The court reasoned that “the Texas Supreme Court would likely . . .
   conclude that § 103.153(b) bars Brown’s lawsuit.”9 The court acknowledged,
   however, that this case presents “a novel issue of Texas law” as “[t]he Texas
   Supreme Court has considered the Tim Cole Act several times, but it has not
   addressed the specific issue presented here.”10 Brown timely appealed.

          4
              Brown v. City of Houston, 297 F. Supp. 3d 748, 756–57 (S.D. Tex. 2017).
          5
              Id.
          6
              Id. at 778.
          7
              Brown v. City of Houston, 538 F. Supp. 3d 725, 735 (S.D. Tex. 2021).
          8
              Id. at 731.
          9
              Id.
          10
               Id. at 730.

                                                 3
Case: 21-20302            Document: 00516717667        Page: 4   Date Filed: 04/19/2023

                                        No. 21-20302

             This appeal addresses the viability of Brown’s federal lawsuit under
   § 1983. It is uncontested that Brown met the criteria of the Tim Cole Act and
   received compensation under it, but the parties dispute the impact of
   § 103.153(b) of the Tim Cole Act on Brown’s federal suit. Section 103.153(b)
   states:
             A person who receives compensation under this chapter may
             not bring any action involving the same subject matter,
             including an action involving the person’s arrest, conviction,
             or length of confinement, against any governmental unit or an
             employee of any governmental unit.11
             Brown contends that he may maintain his § 1983 suit because he filed
   it before he received compensation under the Tim Cole Act. He explains that
   he is simply maintaining his earlier-filed lawsuit and that the statute’s plain
   language only proscribes bringing an action subsequent to receiving Tim Cole
   Act compensation. Defendants-Appellees, on the other hand, assert that
   “the Texas Supreme Court understands § 103.153(b) [as providing that] the
   State’s payment provides immunity to suits against state and local
   governmental entities and employees seeking additional payment for the same
   wrongful conviction.”12 They contend that the Tim Cole Act presents an
   open offer of settlement to which Brown knowingly and willingly agreed.
             In April 2022, we certified the following question to the Texas
   Supreme Court:
             Does Section 103.153(b) of the Tim Cole Act bar maintenance
             of a lawsuit involving the same subject matter against any

             11
                  TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 103.153(b).
             12
                  (emphasis added).

                                             4
Case: 21-20302           Document: 00516717667             Page: 5      Date Filed: 04/19/2023

                                            No. 21-20302

           governmental units or employees that was filed before the
           claimant received compensation under that statute?13
   In February 2023, the Texas Supreme Court answered in the affirmative,
   explaining that “Brown’s acceptance of Tim Cole Act compensation means
   that he has agreed not to ‘bring’ a lawsuit in any forum against governmental
   entities or employees that involves the same subject matter as his Tim Cole
   Act claim. ‘Bringing’ an action in this context entails maintaining it.”14 We
   now analyze the district court’s grant of Defendants-Appellees’ summary
   judgment motion in light of this clarified meaning of § 103.153(b) of the Tim
   Cole Act.
                                    II. Standard of Review
           “We review a grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the same
   legal standards as the district court.”15 Summary judgment is proper “if the
   movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the
   movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”16 “We view the evidence
   in the light most favorable to the nonmovant and draw all reasonable
   inferences in that party’s favor.”17

           13
             Brown v. City of Houston, No. 21-20302, 2022 WL 989364, at *3 (5th Cir. Apr. 1,
   2022), certified question answered sub nom. Brown v. City of Houston, 660 S.W.3d 749 (Tex.
   2023).
           14
                Brown, 660 S.W.3d at 759–60.
           15
            Tex. Ent. Ass’n, Inc. v. Hegar, 10 F.4th 495, 504 (5th Cir. 2021) (quoting Certain
   Underwriters at Llyod’s, London v. Axon Pressure Prods. Inc., 951 F.3d 248, 255 (5th Cir.
   2020)).
           16
                FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a).
           17
                King v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 853 F. App’x 971, 973 (5th Cir. 2021).

                                                  5
Case: 21-20302          Document: 00516717667            Page: 6     Date Filed: 04/19/2023

                                          No. 21-20302

                                         III. Analysis
          Because the Texas Supreme Court had not yet answered the certified
   question, the district court made an Erie guess that Brown’s federal suit was
   barred because of his receipt of compensation under the Tim Cole Act.18 The
   district court analyzed past instances when the Texas Supreme Court had
   interpreted the Tim Cole Act, then held that “presented with the facts in this
   case, the Texas Supreme Court would . . . conclude that § 103.153(b) bars
   Brown’s lawsuit.”19 The Texas Supreme Court later concluded in response
   to our certified question that Brown’s federal lawsuit is barred by his
   acceptance of Tim Cole Act compensation.20
                                       IV. Conclusion
          We therefore AFFIRM the district court’s grant of summary
   judgment in favor of Defendants-Appellees and its dismissal of Brown’s
   remaining § 1983 claims with prejudice.

          18
               Brown, 538 F. Supp. 3d at 731–32.
          19
               Id. at 730–31.
          20
               Brown, 660 S.W.3d at 759–60 (internal quotation marks omitted).

                                                   6