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