Christ Christianity Party v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D In the December 7, 2006 United States Court of AppealsCharles R. Fulbruge III Clerk for the Fifth Circuit _______________ Summary Calendar m 06-10114 _______________ CHRIST CHRISTIANITY PARTY, ET AL., Plaintiffs, SENECA L. LEE, Plaintiff-Appellant, VERSUS TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE; ET AL., Defendants, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, Defendants-Appellees. _________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas m 4:04-CV-108 _________________________ Before SMITH, WIENER, and OWEN, application was denied. He alleges, through Circuit Judges. conclusional affidavits, that the TDCJ has re- hired correctional officers in violation of these PER CURIAM:* guidelines. Seneca Lee appeals a judgment in favor of Lee brought claims on behalf of himself and the Texas Department of Criminal Justice the Christ Christianity Party under titles II and (TDCJ”) dismissing his employment discrimi- VII, the First and Fifth Amendments, and nation claim. Because Lee has failed to estab- chapter 10 of the Texas Civil Practice and lish a prima facie case of discrimination, and Remedies code, alleging that the TDCJ refused because the district court did not abuse its dis- to reinstate him because he is black and had cretion in refusing to allow him to amend his distributed Christian literature to inmates. All complaint, we affirm. claims by the Christ Christianity Party and Lee were dismissed except for Lee’s title VII claim I. based on racial discrimination. An appeal from Because Lee is pro se, we liberally construe the partial dismissal was dismissed for lack of his briefs and apply less stringent standards in appellate jurisdiction. interpreting his arguments than we would in the case of a counseled party. Grant v. Cuel- Lee sought to amend his complaint to add lar, 59 F.3d 523, 524 (5th Cir. 1995). We claims under chapter 10 of the Texas Civil read Lee’s brief as arguing that the district Practice and Remedies Code, Titles II, III, and court incorrectly applied the McDonnell VII, and the First Amendment. His motion to Douglas burden-shifting standard in holding amend was denied, and the TDCJ’s motion for that Lee had failed to prove a prima facie case summary judgment was granted. of employment discrimination. See McDonnell Douglas v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). We II. also read Lee’s brief as arguing that he should We review a summary judgment de novo. have been allowed to amend his pleadings to Morris v. Powell, 449 F.3d 682, 684 (5th Cir. add claims pursuant to chapter 10 of the Texas 2005). All justifiable inferences to be drawn Civil Practice and Remedies Code and titles II, from the underlying facts must be viewed in III, and VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. the light most favorable to the nonmoving par- ty. Minter v. Great Am. Ins. Co., 423 F.3d Lee is a former employee of the TDCJ. In 460, 465 (5th Cir. 2005). Summary judgment January 2001 he was terminated for cause is appropriate where the record demonstrates from his position as a Correctional Officer. It that there is no issue of material fact and the is undisputed that the TDCJ issued guidelines moving party is entitled to judgment as a mat- before June 2003 that did not permit rehiring ter of law. Martinez v. Bally’s La., Inc., 244 of applicants who had been dismissed for F.3d 474, 476 (5th Cir. 2001). cause within the previous ten years. In June 2003 Lee applied for reinstatement, but his To survive summary judgment, a plaintiff in a discrimination case must establish a prima facie case of discrimination through direct evi- * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has dence of discriminatory intent or the shifting- determined that this opinion should not be pub- burden test of McDonnell Douglas. See lished and is not precedent except under the limited Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods. Inc., circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. 530 U.S. 133, 141 (2000). Lee has presented impact from the TDCJ’s policies, Lee’s claims no direct evidence of discrimination, so he would be legally insufficient under any theory must proceed under the shifting-burden test. of discrimination.2 The district court did not A plaintiff can establish a prima facie case by abuse its discretion in denying the motion to showing that he (1) is a member of a protected file an amended complaint. class; (2) was qualified for the position; and (3) was not hired; and (4) the position was AFFIRMED. filled by someone outside the protected class, or other similarly situated persons were treated more favorably. See, e.g., Septimus v. Univ. of Houston, 399 F.2d 601, 609 (5th Cir. 2005). The TDCJ has presented undisputed evi- dence that one qualification for the position of Correctional Officer is that the applicant not have been terminated for cause within the pre- vious ten years. Lee has not presented any competent evidence that this requirement is a pretext.1 He cannot establish a prima facie case, because he is not qualified for the posi- tion. The TDCJ is entitled to summary judg- ment. III. Lee appeals the denial of his motion to amend his pleadings to add claims pursuant to additional legal theories. A ruling on a motion to amend pleadings is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Smith v. EMC Corp., 393 F.3d 590, 595 (5th Cir. 2004). Without addressing whether Lee has a statutory right to bring a discrimination claim under his other legal the- ories, we note that for him to bring a claim of discrimination under any theory, he will need to prove a prima facie case of discrimination. Because he has presented no evidence of direct discrimination, no evidence sufficient to meet the burden-shifting test under McDonnell Douglas, and no evidence of a disparate 2 Cf. Fabela v. Socorro Indep. Sch. Dist., 329 F.3d 414-15 (5th Cir. 2003) (outlining the methods 1 See, e.g., Young v. Equifax Credit Info. of proving a prima facie case of discrimination un- Servs., Inc., 294 F.3d 631, 639 (5th Cir. 2002) der title VII); Reeves, 530 U.S. at 141-42 (apply- (“Conclusory affidavits are not sufficient to defeat ing McDonnell Douglas framework to ADEA a motion for summary judgment.”). claim).