Court Opinion

ID: 9925804
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-23 01:00:42.80338+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:36.478204
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-30806         Document: 00517040588             Page: 1      Date Filed: 01/22/2024

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________
                                                                                  United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                           Fifth Circuit
                                       No. 23-30806
                                      ____________
                                                                                         FILED
                                                                                  January 22, 2024

   Carlos Davis,                                                                      Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                           Clerk
                                                                     Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                             versus

   Hemmersbach US, L.L.C.,

                                                Defendant—Appellee.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Western District of Louisiana
                                USDC No. 5:23-CV-864
                      ______________________________

   Before Wiener, Stewart, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Carlos Davis, proceeding pro se, filed this employment discrimination
   action against Hemmersbach U.S. LLC, alleging he was wrongfully
   terminated from his employment in retaliation for refusing to allow
   Hemmersbach to use his private space as storage for its clients. The district
   court granted Hemmersbach’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to
   state a claim with prejudice.

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-30806      Document: 00517040588           Page: 2   Date Filed: 01/22/2024

                                     No. 23-30806

          On appeal, Davis argues that the district court erred in granting the
   motion to dismiss because it “misinterpreted the definition of an oral
   contract.” But nowhere before the district court did Davis allege the
   presence of a contract, oral or otherwise. To the extent that Davis is raising
   new claims or evidence for the first time on appeal, we will not consider them.
   See Burge v. St. Tammany Parish, 336 F.3d 363, 372 (5th Cir. 2003); Franklin
   v. Blair, 806 F. App’x 261, 263 (5th Cir. 2020) (unpublished).
          Turning to his Title VII retaliation claim, Davis fails to make a prima
   facie showing. To establish a prima facie case of retaliation, an employee
   must show (1) he engaged in protected activity, (2) he suffered an adverse
   employment action, and (3) a casual connection existed between the
   protected activity and the employment action. Adams v. Groesbeck Indep. Sch.
   Dist., 475 F.3d 688, 690-91 (5th Cir. 2007). “An employee has engaged in
   activity protected by Title VII if [he] has either (1) ‘opposed any practice
   made an unlawful employment practice’ by Title VII or (2) ‘made a charge,
   testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation,
   proceeding, or hearing’ under Title VII.” Long v. Eastfield Coll., 88 F.3d 300,
   304 (5th Cir. 1996) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a)). Davis fails at the first
   step because opposing the use of private space as storage for clients does not
   constitute protected activity under Title VII.
          To the extent Davis raises additional claims, he provides zero factual
   support to state a plausible claim, despite having amended his complaint
   twice. Although “pro se complaints are held to less stringent standards than
   formal pleadings drafted by lawyers,” Miller v. Stanmore, 636 F.2d 986, 988
   (5th Cir. Unit A Feb. 1981), “conclusory allegations or legal conclusions
   masquerading as factual conclusions will not suffice to prevent a motion to
   dismiss.” S. Christian Leadership Conf. v. Sup. Ct. of State of La., 252 F.3d
   781, 786 (5th Cir. 2001) (quoting Fernandez-Montes v. Allied Pilots Ass’n, 987
   F.2d 278, 284 (5th Cir. 1993)).

                                          2
Case: 23-30806   Document: 00517040588      Page: 3   Date Filed: 01/22/2024

                             No. 23-30806

         AFFIRMED.

                                  3