Reported / Citable
Background
Elimelech Shmi Hebrew alleges that the Texas Department of Criminal Justice violated Title VII by refusing to accommodate his religious practice and denying him employment as a corrections officer. Hebrew, a member of the Hebrew Israelite Jewish faith, says that a Nazarite vow prohibits him from cutting his hair or beard.
The district court granted TDCJ summary judgment in 2022, but the Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded in 2023 and awarded Hebrew appellate costs. Hebrew did not timely submit a bill of costs. As litigation continued after remand, he filed several motions asserting that the appellate decision was a victory on the merits entitling him to final judgment, damages, costs, and other relief. Judge David Hittner later recused, and the case was reassigned to Judge Andrew S. Hanen.
The Court’s Holding
The court held that the Fifth Circuit’s reversal of summary judgment did not decide the merits in Hebrew’s favor. It merely determined that summary judgment dismissing his claims was improper and returned the case for further litigation. Because no court had adjudicated the merits and found for Hebrew, he was not entitled to final judgment, compensatory or punitive damages, or mandate-based relief.
The court denied Hebrew’s motions to enforce the appellate mandate, obtain appellate costs, stay proceedings, void prior rulings, vacate the scheduling order on mandate grounds, and secure final judgment. It explained that the Fifth Circuit had already determined that Hebrew forfeited appellate costs by failing to file a timely bill of costs. The court also found his recusal-related stay request moot because Judge Hittner had recused and found no evidence that the parties had reached a settlement.
The court partially granted Hebrew’s motion to compel financial disclosures, ordering TDCJ to provide its 2026 and 2027 operating budgets. It separately vacated the prior scheduling order following reassignment and directed the parties to confer and propose a joint scheduling order by November 30, 2026.
Key Takeaways
- Reversal of summary judgment permits litigation to continue but does not ordinarily establish the opposing party’s liability or entitlement to damages.
- A party awarded appellate costs may lose them by failing to submit a timely bill of costs.
- The court denied most of Hebrew’s requested relief but required TDCJ to disclose its 2026 and 2027 operating budgets and ordered the parties to propose a new schedule.
Why It Matters
The order underscores the distinction between defeating summary judgment and winning a case on the merits. A remand for continued proceedings does not itself authorize final judgment, damages, or enforcement measures in favor of the appellant.
It also illustrates that procedural deadlines governing appellate costs remain consequential after remand: an appellate award of costs does not excuse compliance with the rules for timely claiming them.