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

Residents of Jackson, Mississippi, brought a class action lawsuit alleging that the city knowingly contaminated their drinking water with lead, failed to treat the water to prevent lead leaching, and misled the public about the water’s safety. The complaint details how city officials ignored warnings about the water system’s vulnerabilities, failed to repair critical treatment equipment, switched water sources in a way that worsened contamination, and delayed notifying residents of dangerous lead levels. Plaintiffs claim they and their families suffered significant health effects, including lead poisoning and related medical and developmental issues, as a result of consuming the contaminated water.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi granted the defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to state a substantive due process claim against the city and that the individual city officials were entitled to qualified immunity. The district court also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims, dismissing them without prejudice.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The Fifth Circuit held that the plaintiffs plausibly alleged a violation of their Fourteenth Amendment right to bodily integrity by claiming the city affirmatively introduced toxins into the water supply, misrepresented the water’s safety, and thereby deprived residents of the ability to make informed decisions about their health. The court also formally adopted the state-created danger doctrine as a viable theory in the circuit. The court reversed the dismissal of the due process claims against the city and vacated the dismissal of the state-law claims, remanding for further proceedings. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of claims against the individual city officials on qualified immunity grounds, finding the relevant rights were not clearly established at the time. View "Sterling v. City of Jackson" on Justia Law

In August 2019, a company filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, with its only assets being three properties occupied by its sole member and two affiliates. Arrowhead Capital Finance, Ltd. obtained judgments against these affiliates and initiated an adversary proceeding against the debtor, seeking to hold it liable for the affiliates’ obligations. During this process, the bankruptcy trustee filed a separate adversary proceeding to recover unpaid rent from one affiliate. A settlement was reached in which Arrowhead received assignment of claims against the affiliates in exchange for releasing its own claims. The bankruptcy court approved this settlement, retaining jurisdiction over the assigned claims. Arrowhead then intervened and obtained a final judgment against the affiliates, including Royal Street Bistro, LLC (RSB).After the bankruptcy court entered judgment, RSB and another affiliate filed a notice of appeal but failed to attach a copy of the judgment as required by the bankruptcy rules. The bankruptcy court clerk issued a deficiency notice, and the corrected notice was filed ten days after the deadline. Arrowhead moved to dismiss the appeal, arguing that the failure to timely attach the judgment deprived the district court of jurisdiction. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana dismissed the appeal, holding that the defect was jurisdictional and, alternatively, that dismissal was warranted as a discretionary sanction for noncompliance.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. It held that failure to attach the judgment to the notice of appeal is not a jurisdictional defect under the bankruptcy rules, and that the district court abused its discretion by dismissing the appeal without considering lesser sanctions or the absence of prejudice. The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Royal Street Bistro v. Arrowhead Capital" on Justia Law

After Dallas Commodity Company obtained a $1.5 million state court judgment against Joseph F. Langston, Jr. and the Langston Family Limited Partnership, Langston filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. He claimed exemptions for two Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs) worth over $500,000. The bankruptcy trustee repeatedly continued the creditors’ meeting (the “341 meeting”) to allow Langston to provide additional documents. The final 341 meeting occurred on May 26, 2021, after which the trustee failed to file a statement specifying the adjourned date and time as required by Bankruptcy Rule 2003(e). Despite this, the parties continued to communicate and negotiate, with Langston amending his bankruptcy schedules and entering into an agreed order with the trustees to abate related litigation until exemption objections were resolved.The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas overruled Langston’s objection that Dallas Commodity’s challenge to his claimed exemptions was untimely, even though the objection was filed more than 30 days after the last 341 meeting. The bankruptcy court found that Langston had agreed to the continuance and had not objected to the process until after the objection was filed. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas affirmed, applying the Fifth Circuit’s prior case law and finding the objection timely under a case-by-case approach.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and held that, although the trustee failed to comply with the procedural requirements of Bankruptcy Rule 2003(e), Langston had waived his right to object to the timeliness of Dallas Commodity’s exemption challenge by agreeing to the continuance and benefiting from the additional time. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment, holding that the bankruptcy court properly overruled Langston’s timeliness objection on the basis of waiver. View "Langston v. Dallas Commodity Co." on Justia Law

A welder was injured while working on a launch site on the Mississippi River, operated by two closely related companies. The injury occurred when a defective hook, lacking a required safety latch, struck him during a crane operation, causing him to fall and sustain multiple injuries, including a fractured eye socket and a cervical disk injury. Over the following months, he underwent surgery and was prescribed pain medications. After his prescriptions ran out, he attempted to manage his pain with over-the-counter drugs, but ultimately died from an overdose of street fentanyl mixed with Xylazine, a non-prescribed animal tranquilizer.The estate of the deceased sued the two companies for personal injury under the Jones Act, general maritime law, and the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. After a bench trial, the district court found the companies liable for vessel negligence under the LHWCA, determining that the defective hook was an appurtenance of the vessel and the proximate cause of the initial injury. The court also found the two companies to be essentially the same entity and awarded damages to the decedent’s children and mother, including for wrongful death and loss of consortium.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the district court’s findings for clear error and legal conclusions de novo. The Fifth Circuit held that while the defective hook was the proximate cause of the workplace injury, the ingestion of illegal drugs was a superseding cause of death, breaking the chain of causation from the workplace injury. The court reversed the award of damages stemming from the death and loss of consortium, concluding that the companies were not liable for the decedent’s death, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Bommarito v. Belle Chasse Marine Trans" on Justia Law

Sanchez Energy Corporation, a gas producer, underwent Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2019 due to significant debt, with its reorganization plan confirmed in April 2020. The company, later renamed Mesquite Energy, Inc., owned valuable fossil fuel reserves in the Comanche Field, Texas, and had several high-cost contracts for gathering, processing, transporting, and marketing natural gas and natural gas liquids. Carnero G&P, L.L.C., a midstream services provider, had a contract with Sanchez to serve as a backup provider. After Sanchez’s reorganization, Mesquite entered into new agreements with other parties to lower its midstream costs, which Carnero claimed breached its surviving contract.Following the bankruptcy, Carnero filed a state court lawsuit against Mesquite and other parties, asserting state law claims based on the new agreements. The suit was removed to the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas, which denied Carnero’s request to remand and ultimately dismissed the case on the pleadings, finding it had “related-to” jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1334. The bankruptcy court reasoned that the dispute pertained to the implementation of the reorganization plan and that Carnero was barred from challenging the new agreements due to its failure to object during the bankruptcy proceedings. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas affirmed the bankruptcy court’s decision.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the jurisdictional question de novo. The Fifth Circuit held that the bankruptcy court lacked post-confirmation “related-to” jurisdiction over Carnero’s state law contract claims, as the dispute did not pertain to the implementation or execution of the reorganization plan. The court found that the new agreements were not executory contracts under the plan and that Carnero was not barred from pursuing its claims. The Fifth Circuit reversed the lower courts’ judgments and remanded the case with instructions to remand to state court. View "Carnero G&P v. SN EF Maverick" on Justia Law

In this case, the defendant was convicted of sex trafficking a minor after a jury trial. The evidence showed that in 2022, a 15-year-old girl ran away from home and met the defendant in Houston. The defendant, knowing her age, engaged in non-consensual sex with her, supplied her with drugs, and coerced her into sex work. He arranged for her to be photographed in lingerie for online advertisements and kept the money she earned from commercial sex acts, using it for personal expenses. The victim eventually escaped and was hospitalized, where she expressed severe emotional distress and suicidal thoughts. Her mother stayed with her during her hospital stay, incurring lost wages and later purchasing clothing to help her daughter feel safer in public.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas presided over the trial and sentencing. The jury found the defendant guilty, including findings that the victim was under eighteen and that force, threats, fraud, or coercion were involved. The presentence report calculated a Guidelines range of life imprisonment, but the district court imposed a sentence of 480 months’ imprisonment and ten years of supervised release, and later ordered restitution, including amounts for the mother’s lost wages and clothing purchases. The defendant objected to these restitution components and to the consideration of certain statements in the victim-impact statement, and also identified a clerical error in the written judgment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. It held that the district court did not plainly err in considering the full victim-impact statement, did not exceed its statutory authority in awarding restitution for the mother’s lost wages and clothing purchases, and that the statutory scheme allowed such restitution as proximate results of the offense. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the sentence and restitution order, but remanded for correction of the clerical error in the amended judgment to match the court’s oral pronouncement. View "USA v. Limon" on Justia Law

The defendant pled guilty to possessing fentanyl with intent to distribute, after selling fentanyl-laced Percocet pills that resulted in the death of an Army soldier, L.G. The Presentence Investigation Report initially calculated a sentencing range of 210–240 months under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, based on the finding that death resulted from the drug offense. At sentencing, the government presented evidence linking the defendant’s sale to L.G.’s fatal overdose, including communications and undercover purchases. The district court overruled the defendant’s objection to the application of the enhanced guideline and imposed a 240-month sentence.On appeal, the government conceded that applying the enhanced guideline was plain error under United States v. Greenough, because the death was not part of the crime to which the defendant pled guilty. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit remanded for resentencing. At resentencing, the government acknowledged the lower guideline range of 10–16 months. The district court considered arguments for and against an upward variance, ultimately imposing the same 240-month sentence, citing the seriousness of the offense and other statutory factors, but did not inform the defendant of his right to allocute. The defendant’s counsel did not object after sentencing.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the procedural and substantive challenges to the sentence. The court found that the district court’s explanation for the upward variance was insufficient, constituting clear error, but held that this did not affect the defendant’s substantial rights. The court also held that considering L.G.’s death as a sentencing factor was permissible under precedent. Finally, the court found that the failure to allow allocution at resentencing did not warrant reversal. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the 240-month sentence. View "United States v. Horton" on Justia Law

A.P. was a student in Pearland Independent School District who, after a period of homeschooling, returned to the District and began experiencing significant attendance problems. Despite passing her classes with targeted intervention, her absenteeism persisted, and she failed multiple advanced courses that her parents insisted she take against the District’s advice. Her teachers consistently attributed her academic struggles to poor attendance rather than any suspected learning disability. The District recommended less challenging courses and additional support programs, but her parents declined these options and continued to excuse her absences for non-serious reasons.After withdrawing A.P. from the District and homeschooling her, her parents requested a due process hearing, alleging that the District failed to identify and evaluate her for learning disabilities under the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (IDEA). The District offered to conduct an evaluation, but her parents refused consent. Instead, they obtained an independent evaluation, which found some learning disabilities but lacked classroom observations and teacher input. The District determined it did not have enough information to assess her eligibility for special education services. A Special Education Hearing Officer found no IDEA violation, and the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas affirmed, concluding that the District met its child find obligation and that A.P.’s academic issues were primarily due to absenteeism.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case, applying de novo review to mixed questions of law and fact and clear error review to factual findings. The Fifth Circuit held that the District’s child find duty was not triggered by A.P.’s absenteeism or poor grades alone, and that her parents failed to prove she qualified for special education under IDEA. The court affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "A.P. v. Pearland Independent School District" on Justia Law

Marilu Calderon-Uresti, a native of Mexico, entered the United States unlawfully in 2011 after previously being returned to Mexico by immigration authorities. She sought permanent residency through Special Immigrant Juvenile Status, but her application was denied when she reached adulthood. In 2018, she was arrested for a misdemeanor DWI, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement served her with a notice to appear for removal proceedings. Shortly after, she married a U.S. citizen and applied for cancellation of removal under two schemes: the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) “special rule cancellation” for battered spouses, and “regular rule cancellation.” She testified to an immigration judge (IJ) that her husband had physically and emotionally abused her, but she did not provide corroborating evidence such as police reports or hospital records.The Immigration Judge found Calderon-Uresti’s testimony credible but determined she was ineligible for VAWA special rule cancellation because she failed to provide reasonably available corroborating evidence of battery or extreme cruelty. The IJ also found her ineligible for regular rule cancellation due to not meeting the ten-year residency requirement. The IJ ordered her removal but granted voluntary departure. Calderon-Uresti appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), arguing her credible testimony should suffice and that corroborating evidence was not reasonably available. The BIA dismissed her appeal, agreeing she had not met her burden for special rule cancellation and did not address her hardship claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the BIA’s decision. The court held that the BIA’s finding—that Calderon-Uresti failed to meet the statutory eligibility for VAWA special rule cancellation due to lack of corroborating evidence—was supported by substantial evidence. The court also held it lacked jurisdiction to consider her regular rule cancellation arguments because she had not exhausted them administratively before the BIA. The petition for review was denied. View "Calderon-Uresti v. Bondi" on Justia Law

A native and citizen of the Dominican Republic, the petitioner was admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident in 2007. In 2022, he pleaded guilty in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida to conspiracy to commit money laundering under 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h). The judgment included a forfeiture order stating that at least $3,934,518 was obtained and laundered by the petitioner as a result of his participation in the conspiracy. In 2023, the Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings, alleging that the petitioner was removable as an aggravated felon because his offense involved more than $10,000.An Immigration Judge found the petitioner removable as charged, relying on the conviction records, including the forfeiture order. The petitioner applied for cancellation of removal, but the Immigration Judge concluded he was ineligible due to the aggravated felony conviction. On appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals, the petitioner argued that the forfeiture order did not meet the evidentiary standard required to establish that his conviction was an aggravated felony, as it did not specify the amount directly attributable to his conduct. The Board, applying the circumstance-specific approach endorsed by the Supreme Court in Nijhawan v. Holder, found that the forfeiture order was sufficient to establish that the funds involved exceeded $10,000 and dismissed the appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the Board’s decision de novo. The court held that an unrebutted forfeiture order entered solely against an alien, finding a specific amount of laundered funds attributable to the alien’s conduct of conviction, can constitute clear and convincing evidence that the amount of funds required by 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(D) is met. The court denied the petition for review. View "Reyes v. Bondi" on Justia Law