Morris v. Powell
114 F. App'x 629
November 18, 2004 · Docket 03-40600
Headnotes
Generated summaries- Headnote 1
The district court denied the defendants’ summary‑judgment motion and did not address the Texas Attorney General’s argument that a retaliation claim must meet a more‑than‑de minimis standard. Because the appellate court had not previously considered that ground, it could not reverse the denial; instead it remanded for the trial court to evaluate the argument.
- Headnote 2
Johnson v. Sawyer holds that a court of appeals can rely on a ground not adopted by the district court when the movant raised that ground in the district court; the appellate court may affirm on that basis but cannot reverse on an unconsidered ground.
- Headnote 3
The Texas Attorney General advanced the de minimis argument in both its summary‑judgment motion and a motion for reconsideration, but the district court never addressed it. Because the appellate court cannot create a new substantive requirement on review, the inmate plaintiff is not required to prove that the alleged retaliation exceeds a de minimis level.
- Headnote 4
The court noted that the Texas Attorney General’s “more‑than‑de minimis” argument was never addressed by the district court. It emphasized that reversing on a ground the district court did not rely upon would deprive that court of first consideration, so it remanded and dismissed the appeal on factual questions.
- Headnote 5
The Texas Attorney General asked the court to require a “more‑than‑de minimis” showing, raising the issue twice in the district court. The district court never considered the argument, and the appellate court held that without such consideration the plaintiff may proceed without demonstrating the act exceeds de minimis.
- Headnote 6
Citing Johnson v. Sawyer, the opinion explained that a higher court can affirm summary judgment on new grounds when the movant raised them in the district court, even though the district court did not rely on those grounds.
- Headnote 7
The Fifth Circuit held that because the district court never addressed the Texas Attorney General’s “more‑than‑de minimis” argument, the appellate court could not reverse on that basis; instead it remanded for district‑court consideration and dismissed the portion of the appeal dependent on factual issues.
- Headnote 8
The Texas Attorney General urged a de minimis threshold, but the district court never ruled on the argument; therefore the requirement cannot be applied to the plaintiff’s claim absent a trial‑court adoption of the rule.
Opinion
David Gene Morris sued several employees of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) for retaliation. In the district court, the TDCJ employees moved for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. The district court determined that material issues of fact precluded summary judgment and denied the motion. The TDCJ employees appeal the district court’s denial of summary judgment.
In this appeal, the Office of the Texas Attorney General (AG), acting on behalf of the TDCJ employees, asks this court to establish a new rule of law. Specifically, the Texas AG asks this court to require an inmate bringing a retaliation claim to show that he suffered a more than de minimis adverse act. The Texas AG argues that this requirement would avoid endless litigation, assure that prisoners do not insulate themselves from disciplinary action by claiming retaliation, and avoid judicial involvement in minor disciplinary acts. The Texas AG maintains that requiring a more than de minimis retaliatory act would help the courts screen inmate retaliation cases.
The Texas AG advanced this argument twice before the district court — -first in its motion for summary judgment and again in its motion for reconsideration-but the district court did not address the argument. Because the de minimis argument was not the Texas AG’s main argument before the district court, this court cannot determine whether the district court de dined to address the argument or whether the district court failed to address the argument through inadvertence. The district court, nevertheless, deserves the first consideration of the argument. Although this court will affirm a judgment on a ground not relied on by the district court, 2 this court does not ordinarily reverse a district court on a ground it did not rely upon. Reversing on an unrelied-upon basis deprives the district court of the opportunity to squarely address the issue and to develop a more complete record on the disputed matter. For that reason, this court REMANDS this case to the district court for consideration of this argument. Because the Texas AG’s remaining arguments rely on fact questions over which this court lacks jurisdiction, the court DISMISSES the appeal to the extent that the appeal is based on those fact questions.
APPEAL DISMISSED; CASE REMANDED.
. . Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, this 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.
. . See Johnson v. Sawyer, 120 F.3d 1307, 1316 (5th Cir.1997) (explaining that this court can affirm a summary judgment on grounds not relied on by the district court if those grounds were asserted in that court by the movant).