Chance Clyce v. Nadine Butler ( 2020 )

Case: 18-11189 Document: 00515640053 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/16/2020
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
November 16, 2020
No. 18-11189 Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Chance Marcus Clyce, and on behalf of all those
similarly situated; Donna Jill Clyce, and on behalf of
those similarly situated; Mark Clyce, and on behalf of
all those similarly situated,
Plaintiffs—Appellants,
versus
Frederick Farley, Investigator and Supervisor for
Hunt County Juvenile Detention Center, individually
and in his official capacity; Kenneth Wright,
individually and in his official capacity; Shanigia
Williams, individually and in her official capacity,
Defendants—Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:15-CV-793
Before Graves, Costa, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
Case: 18-11189 Document: 00515640053 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/16/2020
No. 18-11189
James E. Graves, Jr., Circuit Judge:*
In 2009, the parents of Chance Clyce filed a lawsuit against multiple
defendants affiliated with the Hunt County Juvenile Detention Center for
neglecting to provide medical care to their son while in the Detention
Center’s custody. The district court dismissed claims against two defendants
without prejudice for improper service and granted summary judgment in
favor of the remaining defendants. We affirmed the dismissal.
In 2014, Chance and his parents filed a second lawsuit against multiple
defendants affiliated with the same Detention Center and the Texas Juvenile
Justice Department. The district court dismissed the claims for being
untimely under the relevant statute of limitations. We reversed the dismissal
and remanded for further proceedings, including consideration of res judicata
and other issues presented. In 2018, the district court dismissed the case
again, this time on res judicata grounds. We agree with Chance that res
judicata should not apply here, so we REVERSE the dismissal and
REMAND for further proceedings.
I. Procedural and Factual Background
“In 2008, when he was thirteen years old, Chance suffered serious
and sustained injuries while detained at Hunt County Juvenile Detention
Center. Though some of the details are disputed, the parties agree that when
Chance was released from the Detention Center only sixteen days after he
arrived, he had lost several pounds, sustained bruises and a fractured arm,
and contracted a life-threatening methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus
(“MRSA”) infection. Due to this severe infection, Chance required multiple
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
2
Case: 18-11189 Document: 00515640053 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/16/2020
No. 18-11189
extensive surgeries on his joints and heart. He asserts that he continues to
suffer chronic pain and will require future surgeries.” Clyce v. Butler, 876
F.3d 145, 147 (5th Cir. 2017) (Clyce II).
In 2009, Donna and Mark Clyce, individually and as next friends of
their minor son Chance, filed suit in the Northern District of Texas against
Hunt County, Texas; Hunt County Juvenile Board (Board); Chief Juvenile
Probation Officer James A. Brown; Detention Officer Anthony Searcy;
Detention Officer Tina Jobe; Detention Officer Davis; Detention Officer
Williams; and other unknown Detention Officers employed at the Detention
Center. The Clyces alleged that the defendants were liable under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 for violating Chance’s Fourteenth Amendment due process right to
reasonable medical care, and that Hunt County and the Board were liable
under the Texas Tort Claims Act for misusing property that caused Chance’s
injuries. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Brown,
Searcy, and Jobe on qualified immunity grounds. It also granted summary
judgment in favor of Hunt County and the Board because the Clyces failed to
provide sufficient evidence to support their § 1983 and tort claims. The
district court dismissed without prejudice the claims against the remaining
defendants, who were not timely and properly served. We affirmed the
district court’s decision. See Clyce v. Hunt Cty., 515 F. App’x 319, 321 (5th
Cir. 2013) (Clyce I), cert. denied, 571 U.S. 955 (2013).
In 2014, Chance, now an adult, and his parents filed a pro se lawsuit
in the Western District of Texas against the Texas Juvenile Justice
Department (TJJD); its interim Executive Director David Reilly; the Hunt
County Juvenile Detention Center; various known and unknown employees
and officials of the TJJD; and various known and unknown staff members of
the Detention Center, including Investigator/Supervisor Frederick Farley,
Detention Officer Kenneth Wright, and Detention Officer Shanigia Williams
(who was named in the previous lawsuit, but not served).
3
Case: 18-11189 Document: 00515640053 Page: 4 Date Filed: 11/16/2020
No. 18-11189
The Clyces sued individually and on behalf of those similarly situated
who were, are, or will be incarcerated at the Detention Center. Specifically,
they alleged that Wright physically abused Chance on March 3, 2008; Farley
lied in the investigation reports; and Williams failed to take Chance to the
emergency room for medical treatment on March 8, 2008. They detailed a
long list of reparative medical procedures that Chance had undergone and
asserted that he still suffered from daily pain and would need additional
surgeries in the future. In addition to individual compensatory and punitive
damages, the Clyces sought to form a class composed of residents of the
Detention Center whose claims of abuse were improperly denied. On behalf
of the class, Chance requested declaratory and injunctive relief.
The TJJD filed a motion to dismiss based on Eleventh Amendment
immunity grounds. Individual defendants affiliated with the TJJD filed a
motion to dismiss. Farley, Wright, and Williams (“Appellees”) also filed a
motion to dismiss based on various grounds, including untimeliness, res
judicata, and that the Detention Center was not a legal entity capable of being
sued.
The case was transferred to the Northern District of Texas. The
Clyces eventually obtained counsel and opposed all pending motions to
dismiss. The district court dismissed the case, which only Chance appealed.
We reversed the dismissal and remanded the case for further consideration,
holding that Texas state law did not support the district court’s conclusion
that a next-friend lawsuit waived the tolling provision. Clyce II, 876 F.3d at
148–50. We noted, however, that a ruling of a timely lawsuit “does not permit
Chance to re-litigate the merits of any already decided claims.” Id. at 150.
“Texas’s tolling provision ‘does not mean that an action commenced by, or
on behalf of, a legally disabled individual can never be given preclusive
effect.’” Id. (quoting Ruiz v. Conoco, Inc., 868 S.W.2d 752, 755–56 (Tex.
4
Case: 18-11189 Document: 00515640053 Page: 5 Date Filed: 11/16/2020
No. 18-11189
1993)). We also granted the Clyces’ motion to dismiss the TJJD and TJJD-
affiliated defendants.
On remand, the magistrate judge ordered supplemental briefing on
the “remaining grounds that support dismissal of this action.” The
Appellees filed a supplemental brief reiterating their res judicata arguments.
Chance, represented by a new attorney, requested leave to file an amended
complaint, seeking to clarify the original claims and delete defendants and the
class action considerations. The proposed amended complaint listed Chance
as the only plaintiff and named the Detention Center, Wright, and Williams
as the defendants. The complaint alleged violations of Chance’s First
Amendment rights (via retaliation), Fourth Amendment rights (via excessive
punishment), Eighth Amendment rights (via cruel and unusual punishment),
and Fourteenth Amendment rights (via violation of his privacy, property and
liberty interests, and equal protection rights). Chance also raised claims
under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (RA) and the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA). He sought damages for past and future physical and
mental pain, medical and mental health expenses, physical impairment, and
losses of educational opportunities.
The magistrate judge deferred consideration of the motion to amend,
suggesting that the amendment would be futile if the action was barred by res
judicata. Chance moved for reconsideration, which the district court granted
in part, deferring its decision on amendment until receipt of Chance’s
supplemental briefing on the res judicata issue and why the amended claims
survived dismissal. After receiving briefing from both sides, the magistrate
judge issued a report recommending dismissal on res judicata grounds. The
report concluded that the two lawsuits were based on the same set of relevant
facts; Chance and the Clyces were in privity; the previous defendants and the
Appellees were not in privity in the traditional sense, but the Appellees
should have been named in the 2009 lawsuit under a theory of nonmutual
5
Case: 18-11189 Document: 00515640053 Page: 6 Date Filed: 11/16/2020
No. 18-11189
claim preclusion; and assuming that the Detention Center is a juridical entity
capable of being sued, the first lawsuit alleged that the Board established and
implemented the policies for the Detention Center, and this special
relationship justified a finding of privity. The district court adopted the
magistrate judge’s report and dismissed the case. Chance timely appealed.
II. Standard of Review
We review de novo the district court’s order denying a motion to
dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). Taylor v. City of Shreveport, 798 F.3d 276, 279
(5th Cir. 2015). All well-pleaded factual allegations are accepted as true and
viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Alexander v. Verizon
Wireless Servs., L.L.C., 875 F.3d 243, 249 (5th Cir. 2017). We also review de
novo the district court’s determination that res judicata bars an action. Test
Masters Educ. Servs., Inc. v. Singh, 428 F.3d 559, 571 (5th Cir. 2005).
III. Legal Analysis
Chance argues that the district court improperly dismissed his claims
on procedural and res judicata grounds, and that it abused its discretion in
denying him the opportunity to amend his complaint. The Appellees contend
that res judicata barred the instant case, and that Chance should not be
afforded another opportunity to relitigate his claims against similar
defendants. We address Chance’s procedural challenges first, followed by
the res judicata and amendment arguments.
A. Procedural Challenges
Chance asserts the following procedural challenges on appeal: (1) res
judicata is an affirmative defense that was improperly raised in a Rule
12(b)(6) motion, and the 2009 lawsuit should not have been considered in
dismissing the case; (2) the attachment of the documents to the Rule 12(b)(6)
motion converted the pleading to a motion for summary judgment, entitling
6
Case: 18-11189 Document: 00515640053 Page: 7 Date Filed: 11/16/2020
No. 18-11189
him to discovery; (3) the Appellees failed to set forth the standard of review
and the burden of proof or specify their requested relief; and (4) the district
court failed to address these challenges when granting the motion to dismiss.
His arguments are all without merit.
First, Chance is correct that res judicata generally cannot be argued in
a motion to dismiss but should instead be pleaded as an affirmative defense.
See Test Masters, 428 F.3d at 570 n.2. However, dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6)
is appropriate if the res judicata bar is apparent on the face of the pleadings.
Kansa Reinsurance Co., Ltd. v. Cong. Mortg. Corp. of Tex., 20 F.3d 1362, 1366
(5th Cir. 1994). Chance also incorrectly argues that because the Appellees
did not ask the court to take judicial notice of the prior lawsuit and the
proposed amended complaint did not mention it, the district court was barred
from considering the prior lawsuit. On the contrary, when ruling on a Rule
12(b)(6) motion, the district court may take judicial notice of matters of
public record. Norris v. Hearst Trust, 500 F.3d 454, 461 n.9 (5th Cir. 2007).
The court was also entitled to take judicial notice of the 2009 proceeding on
its own. See Fed. R. Evid. 201(c)(1).
Additionally, it is true that if matters outside the pleadings are
presented to and not excluded by the court, the Rule 12(b)(6) motion must
be treated as one for summary judgment under Rule 56. See Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12(d); Snider v. L-3 Comms. Vertex Aerospace, L.L.C., 946 F.3d 660, 666
(5th Cir. 2019). However, because the documents attached to the motion to
dismiss were from the 2009 lawsuit, the district court properly took judicial
notice of them. See Norris, 500 F.3d at 461 n.9.
The challenges to the form of the Appellees’ supplemental motion to
dismiss are also meritless. Indeed, the supplemental motion did not specify
the applicable standard of review, the burden of proof, or requested relief.
However, the original motion to dismiss set forth the Rule 12(b)(6) standard.
7
Case: 18-11189 Document: 00515640053 Page: 8 Date Filed: 11/16/2020
No. 18-11189
And the supplemental motion explicitly requested that Chance’s claims “be
dismissed for failure to state a claim as they are barred by the doctrine of res
judicata.”
Lastly, the district court did consider Chance’s procedural challenges
to the Appellees’ motion to dismiss. As the Appellees point out, Chance
raised his procedural challenges in his objections to the magistrate judge’s
report. The district court stated that it had conducted a de novo review of the
objections and then adopted the magistrate judge’s report after finding no
error. Accordingly, the district court did address Chance’s procedural
arguments, albeit not explicitly.
B. Res Judicata
“Under 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.” Oreck Direct, L.L.C. v. Dyson, Inc.,
560 F.3d 398, 401 (5th Cir. 2009) (quoting Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 94
(1980)). True res judicata, or claim preclusion, is a “venerable legal canon”
that “insures the finality of judgments and thereby conserves judicial
resources and protects litigants from multiple lawsuits.” Procter & Gamble
Co. v. Amway Corp., 376 F.3d 496, 499 (5th Cir. 2004) (internal quotation
marks and citation omitted). Claim preclusion applies where (1) the parties
to both actions are identical or are in privity; (2) the first judgment is
rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction; (3) the first action resulted in
a final judgment on the merits; and (4) the same claim or cause of action is
involved in both suits. Id. Chance disagrees with the district court’s analysis
of the first and fourth elements. We discuss both elements below, comparing
the 2009 lawsuit with the proposed amended complaint in the instant case.
8
Case: 18-11189 Document: 00515640053 Page: 9 Date Filed: 11/16/2020
No. 18-11189
i. Same Claim or Cause of Action
Chance argues that the prior lawsuit presented only Fourteenth
Amendment claims arising out of his confinement in the Detention Center
based on a failure to provide him necessary medical treatment. Clyce I, 515 F.
App’x at 321–22. He notes that the proposed amended complaint included
allegations of First, Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment violations.
He also argues that under the ADA, the RA, and the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 1 the defendants had a continuous duty to
compensate him for expenses arising from their violations, and since those
new obligations arose after his stay in the Detention Center, the new claims
involved a different set of facts. The Appellees assert that the claims in both
lawsuits were based on the same set of operative facts.
Res judicata bars the litigation of claims that either have been litigated
or should have been raised in an earlier suit. Test Masters, 428 F.3d at 571. We
apply the “transactional test” to determine whether the claims in the second
suit arise from the “same nucleus of operative facts” as the prior claims.
OJSC Ukrnafta v. Carpatsky Petroleum Corp., 957 F.3d 487, 504 (5th Cir.
2020). Under this test, courts must consider “whether the facts are related
in time, space, origin, or motivation; whether they form a convenient trial
unit; and whether their treatment as a unit conforms to the parties’
expectations or business understanding or usage.” Oreck Direct, 560 F.3d at
402 (internal quotation marks, brackets, and citations omitted).
As the district court noted, the “transaction” in both the prior lawsuit
and the instant case “is Chance’s detention at the Hunt County Juvenile
Detention Center in February and March of 2008.” See Clyce I, 515 F. App’x
1
The proposed amended complaint did not contain a claim under the IDEA. It is
raised for the first time on appeal.
9
Case: 18-11189 Document: 00515640053 Page: 10 Date Filed: 11/16/2020
No. 18-11189
at 321–22. The fact that Chance now seeks to allege new constitutional and
statutory violations arising out of his detention is insufficient to overcome res
judicata. See Snow Ingredients, Inc. v. SnoWizard, Inc., 833 F.3d 512, 522 (5th
Cir. 2016) (“True res judicata bars recovery when a party seeks to relitigate
the same facts even when the party argues a novel legal theory.”). Though
Chance maintains that the injuries alleged in this lawsuit “occurred after he
left the facility and were continuous” and that the defendants had a duty after
he left to provide remedial and compensatory services, the actions (or
inactions) giving rise to that purported duty nevertheless occurred during his
detention. See Agrilectric Power Partners, Ltd. v. Gene. Elec. Co., 20 F.3d 663,
665 (5th Cir. 1994) (“If the factual scenario of the two actions parallel, the
same cause of action is involved in both. The substantive theories advanced,
forms of relief requested, types of rights asserted, and variations in evidence
needed do not inform this inquiry.”).
Further, Chance did not allege that he had contact with any of the
Appellees after he left the Detention Center or that they committed
additional acts after his departure that resulted in the harm he suffered. 18
Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Edward H.
Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure § 4409 (3d ed. 2017)
(“[G]enerally it will be safe to assume that completed conduct gives rise to a
single claim for all resulting harm, both that experienced at the time of suit
and that which will continue into the future.”). Thus, Chance’s new claims
arise out of the same nucleus of facts giving rise to the first lawsuit, and his
new legal theory does not negate a finding of res judicata.
ii. Identity of Parties
Chance also challenges the district court’s conclusion that though the
Appellees in the instant action were not identical to or in privity with the
defendants in the first lawsuit in the traditional sense, the Appellees should
10
Case: 18-11189 Document: 00515640053 Page: 11 Date Filed: 11/16/2020
No. 18-11189
have been named in the 2009 lawsuit under a theory of nonmutual claim
preclusion. Chance primarily argues that Williams, Wright, and Farley 2 are
not in privity with the earlier defendants because Williams was dismissed
from the first lawsuit without prejudice and Wright and Farley were not party
to the first lawsuit.
In the first lawsuit, Chance named as defendants Hunt County, the
Board, various named individuals including Williams, and unknown
detention officers. Williams and the unknown detention officers were
dismissed without prejudice due to failure to serve. The district court
properly concluded that the Appellees were not parties in the first lawsuit.
See Nagle v. Lee, 807 F.2d 435, 440 (5th Cir. 1987) (stating that an individual
does not become a party to a lawsuit unless they voluntarily appear or are
validly served).
Nevertheless, res judicata does not require the parties of the two
actions to be identical, as long as they are in privity. Procter & Gamble, 376
F.3d at 499; Gulf Island-IV, Inc. v. Blue Streak-Gul Is Ops, 24 F.3d 743, 746
(5th Cir. 1994). “Privity is merely another way of saying that there is
sufficient identity between parties to prior and subsequent suits for res
judicata to apply.” Meza v. Gen. Battery Corp., 908 F.2d 1262, 1266 (5th Cir.
1990). We have recognized privity in three “narrowly-defined” situations
where non-parties are “sufficiently close” that they have privity with parties
in the first lawsuit: “(1) where the non-party is a successor in interest to a
party’s interest in property; (2) where the non-party controlled the prior
2
The proposed amended complaint only named the Detention Center, Williams,
and Wright as defendants, but Chance refers to Farley on appeal. Because Chance may seek
an opportunity to amend his complaint and name Farley as a defendant, we include Farley
in our privity analysis.
11
Case: 18-11189 Document: 00515640053 Page: 12 Date Filed: 11/16/2020
No. 18-11189
litigation; and (3) where the non-party’s interests were adequately
represented by a party to the original suit.” Id.
Because the first two circumstances do not apply, we must determine
whether the Appellees’ “interests were adequately represented” by the
defendants in the 2009 lawsuit. Id. Parties in a legally recognized relationship,
such as agents, class representatives, trustees, legal guardians, and
fiduciaries, typically adequately represent non-parties. Taylor v. Sturgell, 553
U.S. 880, 893–95 (2008). We have also applied claim preclusion to the
vicarious liability relationship between a private employer and its employees.
See Lubrizol Corp. v. Exxon Corp., 871 F.2d 1279, 1289 (5th Cir. 1989).
However, “the concept of ‘adequate representation’ does not refer to
apparently competent litigation of an issue in a prior suit by a party holding
parallel interests; rather, it refers to the concept of virtual representation, by
which a nonparty may be bound because the party to the first suit ‘is so
closely aligned with his [the nonparty’s] interests as to be his virtual
representative.’” Freeman v. Lester Coggins Trucking, Inc., 771 F.2d 860, 864
(5th Cir. 1985) (quoting Aerojet General Corp. v. Askew, 511 F.2d 710, 719 (5th
Cir. 1975)). “Privity is not established by the mere fact that persons may be
interested in the same question or in proving the same set of facts.” Id.
(quoting Hardy v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 681 F.2d 334, 340 (5th Cir.
1982)).
Here, the previous and current individual defendants were coworkers
at a county detention center. 3 It is undisputed that the Appellees are not in a
3
On appeal, the Appellees do not address the district court’s conclusion that they
were not in privity with their county employer. We therefore decline to address whether
privity exists between the Appellees and Hunt County or the Board. See Brinkmann v.
Dallas Cty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987) (“We will not raise and
discuss legal issues that [a litigant] has failed to assert.”).
12
Case: 18-11189 Document: 00515640053 Page: 13 Date Filed: 11/16/2020
No. 18-11189
legally recognized relationship or a vicarious liability relationship with the
previous defendants. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676 (2009) (holding
that government officials cannot be held liable for their subordinates’
unconstitutional conduct under a theory of respondeat superior). Instead, the
Appellees rely heavily (as did the district court) on two district court cases
stating that “members of the same government agency” are generally in
privity. See Chalmers v. City of Dallas, No. 3:14-CV-36, 2014 WL 7174289, at
*7 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 16, 2014); McCoy v. Blossom, Civ. No. 09-2146, 2014 WL
1120346, at *4 (W.D. La. Mar. 20, 2014).
We have recognized privity between “officers of the same
government”—that is, between federal IRS agents and the IRS
Commissioner, each of whom acted as a representative of the United
States—who were sued for assessing an income tax deficiency. Boone v.
Kurtz, 617 F.2d 435, 436 (5th Cir. 1980) (quoting Sunshine Anthracite Coal
Co. v. Adkins, 310 U.S. 381, 402–03 (1940)); see also Lariscey v. Smith, 66 F.3d
323, 1995 WL 535008, at *2 (5th Cir. 1995) (finding privity between
government defendants who “were either the same persons or agencies or
employees of the federal government” sued for their “civil RICO
enterprise” depriving a prisoner of his invention and its revenues). We have
also found privity between officers of the same state agency—i.e., between
game wardens of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department and other officials
of the same Department—sued for investigating a fishery operation. Fregia
v. Bright, 750 F. App’x 296, 300 (5th Cir. 2018). Privity existed in these cases
because the plaintiff sought to relitigate the same agency action against
different officers of the same agency. Similarly, privity was found in Chalmers
because the plaintiff sued employees of the same government entity (the City
of Dallas) for the fourth time over the state’s statutory requirement that he
register as a sex offender; that is, over a singular government action, not the
individual actions of each employee. 2014 WL 7174289, at *7; see also
13
Case: 18-11189 Document: 00515640053 Page: 14 Date Filed: 11/16/2020
No. 18-11189
Sunshine Anthracite, 310 U.S. at 402–03 (“There is privity between officers
of the same government so that a judgment in a suit between a party and a
representative of the United States is res judicata in relitigation of the same
issue between that party and another officer of the government.” (emphasis
added)).
Privity, however, does not exist merely because the previous and
current litigants work for the same government entity. In Nagle v. Lee, we
refused to find privity between a sheriff and deputy sheriffs, where the sheriff
was accused of negligent supervision and the deputy sheriffs were later sued
for excessive force. 807 F.2d 435, 440 (5th Cir. 1987). We noted “the
individual nature of [the sheriff’s] presence” in the first suit and that the
sheriff was not “acting as a representative of the officers.” Id. n.4. It could
not be said that the deputy sheriffs’ interests were “adequately represented”
by the sheriff in the prior lawsuit. Meza, 908 F.2d at 1266. Accordingly, the
Fifth Circuit has never adopted a rule that privity exists between officers of
the same government simply because they are coworkers; thus, the district
court’s reliance on McCoy was misplaced.
Guided by our precedent and the general principle that nonmutual
claim preclusion is “generally disfavored,” we cannot affirm the district
court’s dismissal on res judicata grounds. NY Pizzeria, Inc. v. Syal, 53 F.
Supp. 3d 962, 969 (S.D. Tex. 2014) (citation omitted); see also Sidag
Aktiengesellschaft v. Smoked Foods Prods. Co., 776 F.2d 1270, 1275 n.4 (5th Cir.
1985) (“The arguments for nonmutual claim preclusion beyond situations
involving indemnification or derivative relationships, and protection of a pre-
existing judgment, are substantially weaker than the arguments for
nonmutual issue preclusion.” (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted)). Unlike Boone and Fregia, Chance did not seek to relitigate the same
official agency action. Instead, the previous defendants were sued for their
individual acts of medical negligence, while the proposed amended complaint
14
Case: 18-11189 Document: 00515640053 Page: 15 Date Filed: 11/16/2020
No. 18-11189
enumerated distinct, discrete actions of each Appellee that could make them
individually liable for Chance’s injuries. Specifically, Chance alleged new
facts against Wright for retaliation, sexual assault, and excessive force; Farley
for lying in his investigatory reports; and Williams for retaliation and medical
negligence. We doubt that the Appellees’ interests were “adequately
represented” by any of the defendants in the prior suit because only the
Appellees would be personally liable for any judgments against them in the
instant case. Meza, 908 F.2d at 1266; cf. Harmon v. Dallas Cty., 927 F.3d 884,
891 (5th Cir. 2019) (noting that a state actor sued in an individual capacity for
discrete actions must satisfy the judgment out of his own pocket). Indeed, the
dismissal order in the first suit expressly stated that it was without prejudice
as to Williams and the unnamed officials. Accordingly, the district court
erred in finding privity between the prior individual defendants and the
Appellees. 4
C. Leave To Amend Complaint
Lastly, we address Chance’s argument that the district court abused
its discretion in denying his motion for leave to amend his pleadings. Courts
should “freely give leave” for parties to amend pleadings “when justice so
requires,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2), and they should favor granting leave
to amend unless a party unduly delayed raising the claim, the motion resulted
from bad faith or a dilatory motive, a litigant had been given previous
opportunities to cure deficiencies which were not exercised, the opposing
party would suffer undue prejudice, or an amendment would be futile. See
Lowrey v. Texas A&M Univ. Sys., 117 F.3d 242, 245 (5th Cir. 1997) (citing
4
On appeal, Chance does not challenge the district court’s finding of privity
between the Detention Center and the Board, so we deem the issue abandoned. See
Brinkmann, 813 F.2d at 748. Accordingly, on remand, Chance is precluded from bringing
claims against the Detention Center.
15
Case: 18-11189 Document: 00515640053 Page: 16 Date Filed: 11/16/2020
No. 18-11189
Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)). Pro se litigants should generally
have an opportunity to amend their complaint before it is dismissed. Brewster
v. Dretke, 587 F.3d 764, 767–68 (5th Cir. 2009).We normally review the
denial of a motion to amend for abuse of discretion, but where the district
court’s denial of leave to amend was based solely on futility, we apply a de
novo standard of review. City of Clinton v. Pilgrim’s Pride Corp., 632 F.3d 148,
152 (5th Cir. 2010).
After obtaining counsel, Chance requested leave to amend his pro se
complaint in order to name Chance as the only plaintiff and the Detention
Center, Wright, and Williams as the only defendants; delete the class action
considerations; and clarify his original claims. The magistrate judge
suggested that the amendment would be “futile” if the action were barred by
res judicata. The district court allowed Chance to submit supplemental
briefing as to how the proposed amended claims would survive res judicata.
Once it concluded that claim preclusion should apply, the motion to amend
was denied.
We cannot say that the district court abused its discretion in denying
leave to amend. The amendment would not have necessarily precluded a
finding of res judicata because the proposed amended complaint still named
the Appellees as defendants and only clarified the original claims against
them. Nevertheless, on remand, Chance is free to file another motion
requesting permission to amend, which the district court should consider
granting in light of the federal rules’ liberal policy of allowing amendments to
pleadings. See Dussouy v. Gulf Coast Inv. Corp., 660 F.2d 594, 598 (5th Cir.
1981).
16
Case: 18-11189 Document: 00515640053 Page: 17 Date Filed: 11/16/2020
No. 18-11189
IV. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, we REVERSE the district court’s
judgment dismissing the case and REMAND for further proceedings
consistent with this opinion.
17