Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
After an altercation with a bus passenger who followed him into an HEB grocery store, Mark Thompson was stopped by HEB security and an Austin police officer. The passenger accused Thompson of cutting him with a knife. After reviewing video footage, an HEB manager banned Thompson from the store for one year.
Thompson sued the City of Austin, the Austin Police Department, and HEB, but his complaint recounted the incident without asserting any claim for relief under federal or state law. Screening the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), a magistrate judge recommended dismissal as frivolous because the allegations did not give rise to a claim against the City or HEB. Thompson filed no objections, and the district court adopted the recommendation. It later denied his motion for reconsideration and his motion to amend the judgment, through which he attempted to introduce new facts and a police report.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Circuit affirmed. Thompson argued that the district court improperly relied on video evidence and failed to consider discrepancies between the video and the police report. But neither item was before the district court until Thompson submitted material with his post-judgment motion.
The court explained that a motion to amend a judgment is not a vehicle for presenting evidence, theories, or arguments that could have been raised before judgment. It also declined to consider additional facts appearing for the first time on appeal because they were not alleged in the district court. With no properly preserved material supporting Thompson’s appellate challenge, the court concluded that there was nothing for it to consider.
Key Takeaways
- A complaint that merely recounts events without identifying a cognizable federal or state claim may be dismissed during screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
- A litigant generally may not use a post-judgment motion to introduce evidence or arguments that could have been presented before judgment.
- An appellate court will not consider new factual allegations that were never presented to the district court.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that even self-represented litigants must state a legally cognizable claim and present their supporting facts and evidence before judgment. Post-judgment motions ordinarily cannot repair omissions by adding material that was previously available.
It also illustrates the limits of appellate review: the court of appeals reviews the record developed below rather than deciding a case based on new factual assertions raised for the first time on appeal.