Court Opinion

ID: 9881511
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-03 00:00:38.030977+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:16:01.433744
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-10776         Document: 00516916384             Page: 1      Date Filed: 10/02/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________
                                                                                United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                         Fifth Circuit
                                       No. 23-10776
                                     Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                     ____________                                October 2, 2023
                                                                                  Lyle W. Cayce
   Candace Searcy,                                                                     Clerk

                                                                     Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                             versus

   Crowley Independent School District,

                                                Defendant—Appellee.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Northern District of Texas
                                USDC No. 4:23-CV-647
                      ______________________________

   Before Davis, Ho, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Plaintiff-Appellant Candace Searcy, proceeding pro se and in forma
   pauperis, filed suit against Crowley Independent School District (“CISD”)
   alleging that CISD breached her employment contract, embezzled money,
   harassed and discriminated against her, and ultimately retaliated against her
   for reporting these issues to human resources.                 To better understand

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-10776            Document: 00516916384              Page: 2        Date Filed: 10/02/2023

                                             No. 23-10776

   Searcy’s claims, the magistrate judge ordered Searcy to answer a question-
   naire.
            Because Searcy proceeded in forma pauperis, the magistrate judge re-
   viewed the sufficiency of her complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). As
   part of that review, the magistrate judge construed Searcy’s claims of dis-
   crimination and retaliation as falling under the purview of Title VII and its
   state counterpart, Chapter 21 of the Texas Labor Code, and recommended
   that these claims be dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
   The magistrate judge also recommended that supplemental jurisdiction over
   Searcy’s state-law claims should be declined. The district court adopted
   these recommendations and dismissed Searcy’s complaint without prejudice
   for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Searcy
   timely appealed.
            We review a dismissal for failure to state a claim pursuant to
   § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) de novo. 1 In determining whether the complaint fails to
   state a claim, we “us[e] the same standard applicable to dismissals under
   Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).” 2
            The district court did not err in dismissing Searcy’s complaint for fail-
   ure to state a claim based on failure to exhaust administrative remedies. 3
   “Employment discrimination plaintiffs must exhaust administrative reme-
   dies before pursuing claims in federal court.” 4 Exhaustion requires the
            _____________________
            1
                Ruiz v. United States, 160 F.3d 273, 275 (5th Cir. 1998).
            2
                Rogers v. Boatright, 709 F.3d 403, 407 (5th Cir. 2013) (citation omitted).
            3
              See Dao v. Auchan Hypermarket, 96 F.3d 787, 788-89 (5th Cir. 1996) (dismissing a
   plaintiff’s complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies because the plaintiff
   “did not file a disability discrimination charge with the EEOC or with a state or local
   agency” and therefore did not receive a right-to-sue letter).
            4
                Taylor v. Books A Million, Inc., 296 F.3d 376, 378-79 (5th Cir. 2002).

                                                    2
Case: 23-10776           Document: 00516916384              Page: 3      Date Filed: 10/02/2023

                                            No. 23-10776

   plaintiff to file “a timely charge with the EEOC and receive[] a statutory no-
   tice of right to sue.” 5
           On appeal, Searcy for the first time requests a default judgment of
   $20,000 in damages for the “federal crimes” of embezzlement and breach of
   contract. However, she fails to brief any argument challenging the district
   court’s determination that she failed to exhaust her administrative remedies
   or the court’s refusal to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her state-law
   claims. 6 At most, Searcy asserts that she filed a charge of discrimination with
   the Texas Workforce Commission and with the Equal Employment Oppor-
   tunity Commission, but she does not address whether she has received a
   right-to-sue letter from either agency. Thus, because Searcy does not ad-
   dress many of the district court’s findings it “is the same as if [s]he had not
   appealed that judgment.” 7
           Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.

           _____________________
           5
             Id. (citation omitted). This Court, in applying Texas law, has held that failure to
   receive a Texas Workforce Commission right-to-sue letter is a condition precedent, not a
   jurisdictional prerequisite to filing suit. Gorman v. Verizon Wireless Tex., L.L.C., 753 F.3d
   165, 170 (5th Cir. 2014).
           6
              See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993) (requiring even pro se
   litigants to brief arguments in order to maintain them).
           7
               Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).

                                                  3