Spring Branch Indep Sch Dist v. W. ( 2022 )

Case: 21-20475 Document: 00516534547 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/04/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
November 4, 2022
No. 21-20475 Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Spring Branch Independent School District,
Plaintiff—Appellant/Cross-Appellee,
versus
O. W., by next friend Hannah W.,
Defendant—Appellee/Cross-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:16-CV-2643
Before Stewart, Willett, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Having reviewed the record and briefs, we order this appeal dismissed
for lack of jurisdiction. The district court’s decision on appeal considered the
parties’ arguments and concluded by remanding the proceedings to an
administrative officer to determine an appropriate compensatory award. At
the end of the decision, the district court explicitly ordered that “this case be
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 21-20475 Document: 00516534547 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/04/2022
No. 21-20475
ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSED.” It also stated that “[i]f either party
decides to appeal the [administrative officer’s] determination, that party may
move to reinstate the case on the court’s active docket.”
Neither party raises jurisdiction as an issue in this case. Indeed, both
parties assert that this court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
However,“[o]ur court has an independent duty to examine the basis of its
jurisdiction.” Feld Motor Sports, Inc. v. Traxxas, L.P., 861 F.3d 591, 595 (5th
Cir. 2017). Under § 1291, our jurisdiction “extends only to ‘final decisions’
of the district courts.” Cook v. City of Tyler, 974 F.3d 537, 539 (5th Cir. 2020)
(per curiam). This court has held that administrative closures do not meet
this finality requirement. See Gross v. Keen Grp. Sols., L.L.C., 18 F.4th 836,
840 (5th Cir. 2021) (“It is well established that administrative closures
cannot serve as the basis for appellate jurisdiction.” (citations omitted)); S.
La. Cement, Inc. v. Van Aalst Bulk Handling, B.V., 383 F.3d 297, 302 (5th Cir.
2004) (“[W]e hold that administratively closing a case is not a dismissal or
final decision.”). This is especially so here where the district court expressly
provides that the parties can move to reopen the case on its active docket. See
Sentry Select Ins. Co. v. Ruiz, 770 F. App’x 689, 690 (5th Cir. 2019) (per
curiam) (“By administratively closing the case, the district court retains
jurisdiction, meaning it can ‘reopen the case—either on its own or at the
request of a party—at any time.’ ‘[R]eservation of jurisdiction . . . precludes
appellate jurisdiction because an order framed this way is not a final
judgment.’” (citations and quotations omitted)). We thus lack jurisdiction to
review this appeal.
2