Harriett Hughes Wallace v. Duval Cty Public School, No. 09-16294 (11th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 09-16294 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT JULY 19, 2010 JOHN LEY CLERK D. C. Docket No. 08-00585-CV-J-34TEM HARRIETT HUGHES WALLACE, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus DUVAL COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM, VICKI REYNOLDS, Asst. Superintendent HR, DANNY FOYE, Supervisor, HR Civil Service/Labor Relations, JANICE HUNTER, General Director, Academic Programs, Defendants-Appellees. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida _________________________ (July 19, 2010) Before EDMONDSON, BIRCH and MARTIN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Harriett Hughes Wallace, an African-American female proceeding pro se, appeals the district court s order granting summary judgment in favor of her employer, Duval County Public School System ( DCPSS ), on her discrimination, retaliation, and harassment claims brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. ยง 2000e-2(a). On appeal, Wallace does not challenge the district court s determination that she was not entitled to relief under Title VII. She has therefore abandoned any argument that the district court erred in granting summary judgment on her Title VII claims. See Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008) ( While we read briefs filed by pro se litigants liberally, issues not briefed on appeal by a pro se litigant are deemed abandoned. (citations omitted)). Instead, she argues only that her involuntary transfer to a surplus position without notice violated the terms of a collective bargaining agreement between her union and employer. Even broadly construed, however, neither her pro se complaint nor her response to the defendants motion for summary judgment fairly raise this issue. This being the case, the issue she now raises was never presented to the district court so that court s order granting summary judgment to the defendants does not address it. 2 We have repeatedly held that an issue not raised in the district court and raised for the first time in an appeal will not be considered by this court. Access Now, Inc. v. Sw. Airlines Co., 385 F.3d 1324, 1331 (11th Cir. 2004) (quotations omitted). We will not allow a plaintiff to argue a different case from the case she presented to the district court. Irving v. Mazda Motor Corp., 136 F.3d 764, 769 (11th Cir. 1998). So we decline to address the validity of the defendants actions under the collective bargaining agreement here.1 AFFIRMED. 1 Wallace says we may properly address the issue because she raised it in her trial brief, which was filed more than four months after the defendants filed their motion for summary judgment and three days before the district court entered its order granting that motion. We have carefully reviewed that filing and readily conclude that it was insufficient to place the issue before the district court or to avoid summary judgment on the claims actually presented in Wallace s complaint. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
