Justia U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff, a contract FBI employee, sued the government under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-1 et seq., alleging sex discrimination and retaliation. The district court dismissed for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) and for summary judgment. The court concluded that subsection (g) created a security exemption to Title VII where access was denied to a premise where secure information was kept. Therefore, plaintiff could not be granted relief under Title VII where the government advanced numerous reasons for revocation of her access to the building where secured information was kept, all of which were related to security breaches she allegedly committed. View "Toy v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to illegal reentry of an alien previously removed subsequent to a conviction for commission of an aggravated felony in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1326(a) and (b)(2). On appeal, defendant contended that neither his Florida convictions for burglary and sexual battery constituted a crime of violence. The court concluded that defendant's sexual battery conviction constituted a crime of violence within the scope of the enumerated category of "forcible sex offenses" pursuant to U.S.S.G. 2L1.2 cmt. n. 1(B)(iii). Accordingly, the court affirmed the sentence. View "United States v. Garza-Guijan" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for a number of drug and firearm offenses. To the extent that the descriptions of the charged offense conduct in defendant's indictment were ambiguous, the court held that any such ambiguity was cured by the captions. As a result, defendant's indictment contained all the elements of the offenses charged, described them with the requisite particularity, and was specific enough so as to preclude any double jeopardy concerns. Therefore, the court declined to reverse defendant's convictions on Counts 2 and 4. The court also held that the district court's instructions to the jury in no way broadened the basis of convictions beyond the indictment and they did not amount to a constructive amendment; the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion to strike a juror; the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining a lesser-included-offense jury instruction of simple possession; because of the extremely limited impact of the objected-to question on the trial proceedings and the substantiality of the evidence presented, the Government's question did not prejudice defendant; and the court rejected defendant's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence on the firearms counts. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Cooper" on Justia Law

This case arose when plaintiffs filed a class action suit in state court against the Levee District and Flood Protection Agency. Plaintiffs then initiated a second state court suit against the Levee District and the Agency. Subsequently, plaintiffs filed an amended petition, joining the Corps as a defendant, seeking declaratory judgment that defendants did not possess a servitude over their property. The Corps then removed the case to federal district court, the district court granted in part and denied in part the Corps' motion to dismiss, and the United States petitioned for permission to appeal. At issue on appeal was whether plaintiffs' action against the Corps fell within the scope of the Quiet Title Act (QTA), 28 U.S.C. 2409a, so as to waive the United States' immunity to suit and authorize federal subject matter jurisdiction. Because the title dispute here concerned ownership of the purported servitude - a title dispute between plaintiffs and a third party - and because it was plausible to read the QTA as only authorizing suit when the underlying title dispute was between plaintiff and the United States, the court reversed the judgment of the district court and remanded for further proceedings. View "Lonatro, et al v. United States" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 against defendants, claiming that officers violated their right to freedom from excessive force and the officers acted in furtherance of a City official policy of racial profiling and discrimination. At issue was whether the officer at issue should be granted qualified immunity for his use of force against two of the plaintiffs. The officer fired his pistol at one plaintiff three times, striking him once in the chest and causing serious injury. Because no genuine dispute of material fact existed for whether the officer at issue directed deadly force against that plaintiff and non-deadly force at another plaintiff was objectively unreasonable in the light of clearly-established law, the Rule 54(b) judgment in favor of the officer was affirmed. View "Tolan, et al v. Cotton, et al" on Justia Law

This appeal arose from a dispute between the City and RBIII where the City demolished a dilapidated building on property that RBIII owned. The City did not provide notice to RBIII before razing the structure and RBIII filed suit against the City. The district court granted summary judgment for the City on all claims except a Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process claim and a Fourth Amendment unreasonable search and seizure claim. Those claims were tried to a jury, which returned a verdict in favor of RBIII. The City then appealed. The court agreed with the City's argument on appeal that the district court's jury instructions did not accurately reflect the applicable law and that, under the correct legal standards, it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Accordingly, the court remanded for further proceedings. Because the court vacated the trial court's judgment against the City, the court need not consider the other issues raised in the City's appeal. View "RBIII, L.P. v. City of San Antonio" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a professor at LSU, appealed the district court's dismissal of his complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. Plaintiff alleged discrimination based on his race, religion, national origin, age, and gender. Although plaintiff asserted claims for injunctive and declaratory relief, he could not overcome sovereign immunity under Ex parte Young because he named only LSU, LSU Health, and the LSU Board as defendants. Therefore, the court found that sovereign immunity barred plaintiff's claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. 621 et seq., and 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 1985. Plaintiff's state law claims were also barred by sovereign immunity. With regard to plaintiff's remaining claims, the court recognized that plaintiff was not required to establish a prima facie case of discrimination at the pleading stage, but the court nonetheless concluded that plaintiff had failed to state a claim for which relief could be granted. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Raj v. LSU, et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, purchaser of real property, sought damages resulting from alleged fraudulent misrepresentations. Plaintiff purchased property advertised as development-ready with an active waste-water permit. Plaintiff then learned that the permit had expired, but nevertheless maintained possession of the property and continued making its required financing payments. Plaintiff did not allege fraud until it defaulted on the modified promissory note - the original note having been modified after plaintiff defaulted - and faced foreclosure. The court held that plaintiff, with full knowledge of the alleged fraud, ratified the purchase and sale price of the property. Such ratification foreclosed plaintiff's right to damages, because plaintiff received the benefit of its bargain. Therefore, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "R&L Investment Property, L.L.C v. Hamm, et al" on Justia Law

Debtors, Schlotzsky's Inc. and certain affiliates, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection and appellants were one of the creditors. On appeal, appellants challenged the denial of their motion to pursue post-confirmation causes of action on behalf of the reorganized debtor. The court concluded that the joint plan of liquidation (Plan) did not specifically reserve the state law claims that appellants wished to assert. Without this specific reservation, the Plan Administrator - and, by extension, appellants - lacked standing to pursue the proposed claims. Thus, the claims were not colorable, and the bankruptcy court did not err in denying appellants' motion to pursue causes of action on behalf of debtors. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Wooley, et al v. Faulkner, et al" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of three counts of child sex trafficking, one count of conspiring to harbor illegal aliens, and six counts of alien harboring. Defendant appealed. The court concluded that the jury instructions correctly stated the three essential elements of child sex trafficking under 18 U.S.C. 1591(a); the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's convictions on all three counts of child sex trafficking; and the district court properly calculated defendant's 360-month Guidelines sentence. Accordingly, the court affirmed the convictions and sentence. View "United States v. Garcia-Gonzalez" on Justia Law