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

The plaintiff owned a building in Corpus Christi, Texas, with significant cultural and historical importance, particularly within the Black community. Over several years, the City’s Code Enforcement Division cited the property for structural deficiencies and ultimately recommended its demolition. Despite the plaintiff’s efforts to preserve the building for historic purposes, the Building Standards Board voted to recommend demolition at a hearing that the plaintiff and her counsel could not attend. After the City temporarily suspended the demolition order, it imposed conditions on the plaintiff to secure the property, which the City later deemed unmet. The City then gave the plaintiff 30 days to demolish the building or face further action.The plaintiff filed suit in Texas state court against the City and two City employees, alleging that selective enforcement of building codes violated her rights under the Equal Protection Clause, asserting a “class of one” theory under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The case was removed to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim, finding that the plaintiff had not sufficiently pleaded a substantive constitutional violation and thus did not reach the question of municipal liability.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed only the claim against the City, as the plaintiff did not pursue claims against the individual defendants. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the dismissal. The court held that the plaintiff’s allegations did not establish a municipal policy, custom, or pattern of selective enforcement sufficient to state a claim for municipal liability under Monell v. Department of Social Services. The court found that a single cited instance of allegedly selective enforcement was insufficient to plead an official policy or custom. Accordingly, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the action. View "Cambric v. City of Corpus Christi" on Justia Law

The defendant entered a bank in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, and gave a cashier a note demanding money and threatening harm to everyone present. Believing he was armed, the cashier complied, handing over approximately $20,000. The defendant was later arrested and pled guilty to bank robbery under federal law. In the presentence report, the probation officer recommended a career-offender sentencing enhancement based on two prior Louisiana convictions: one for armed robbery and another for attempted armed robbery.At sentencing, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana agreed with the presentence report's assessment and found that the defendant qualified as a career offender under the United States Sentencing Guidelines § 4B1.1(a). As a result, the defendant’s offense level and criminal history category were increased, resulting in a recommended guideline range of 151 to 188 months. The district court sentenced the defendant to 151 months in prison and three years of supervised release. The defendant objected, arguing that Louisiana armed robbery does not categorically qualify as a “crime of violence” for purposes of the Guidelines.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the district court’s determination de novo. The appellate court concluded that Louisiana’s armed robbery statute requires the intentional use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force, and not merely reckless or negligent conduct. The court found that the defendant failed to show any realistic probability that Louisiana would apply its statute to unintentional acts. Therefore, the Fifth Circuit held that Louisiana armed robbery constitutes a “crime of violence” under the force clause of the Sentencing Guidelines and affirmed the district court’s sentence. View "USA v. Lanaute" on Justia Law

Several landowners in South Texas leased mineral rights to a company that later filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. During the bankruptcy proceedings, the company, responding to a collapse in oil prices during the COVID-19 pandemic, temporarily halted production on wells within the leased premises for about 40 days before resuming operations. The bankruptcy court subsequently confirmed the company’s reorganization plan, which included a set deadline for filing administrative expense claims.The landowners, asserting that the company’s temporary cessation of production had automatically terminated their leases under the leases’ terms and Texas law, filed a motion in bankruptcy court seeking administrative expense priority for damages related to alleged post-termination trespass. They also sought to have a state court adjudicate whether the leases had terminated and whether trespass damages were owed, arguing that the bankruptcy court lacked jurisdiction or should abstain from deciding these underlying state-law issues. The bankruptcy court determined that it had core jurisdiction to decide the administrative expense claim, which included resolving the validity of the underlying lease-termination and trespass claims. The court found that the temporary cessation did not terminate the leases, denied the administrative expense claim, and declined to abstain. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas affirmed, rejecting arguments concerning jurisdiction, abstention, and the application of Texas law.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that the bankruptcy court properly exercised jurisdiction over the administrative expense claim, which necessarily included resolving the underlying state-law lease-termination and trespass issues. The Fifth Circuit further held that, under the express terms of the leases and Texas law, the temporary cessation of production did not result in automatic termination, as production was resumed well within the contractual 120-day period. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the lower courts’ rulings. View "Storey Minerals v. EP Energy E&P" on Justia Law

The case centers on a plaintiff who filed a Fair Labor Standards Act suit for unpaid wages and recordkeeping violations against his former employer. The plaintiff’s attorney, who neither resides nor holds an office near the courthouse, failed to appoint local counsel within the required timeframe due to a calendaring error. Pursuant to the district court’s local rule, a notice was issued warning that failure to comply could result in dismissal. After the deadline passed without compliance, the district court dismissed the case without prejudice, citing failure to prosecute or comply with court rules.Following the dismissal, the plaintiff promptly moved to reopen the case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1), arguing that his attorney’s oversight constituted excusable neglect, and appointed local counsel. The district court denied the motion, reasoning that the plaintiff had not shown that dismissal without prejudice amounted to dismissal with prejudice, and cited prior Fifth Circuit cases as support. The plaintiff filed a second motion, distinguishing his case from the cited cases and again seeking relief, but the district court denied this motion as well, applying the same reasoning.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the denial of the Rule 60(b) motions for abuse of discretion. The appellate court held that the district court erred by imposing a requirement that the plaintiff show dismissal without prejudice functioned as a dismissal with prejudice before granting relief under Rule 60(b). The Fifth Circuit clarified that neither Campbell v. Wilkinson nor Jones v. Meridian Security Insurance Company established such a standard for Rule 60(b) motions. The appellate court vacated the district court’s denials of the plaintiff’s motions and remanded for further proceedings, instructing the district court to consider the proper factors for excusable neglect under Rule 60(b)(1). View "Deras v. Johnson & Johnson" on Justia Law

In 1995, a woman was murdered in Houston, and Carlos Ayestas was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death. Years later, Ayestas’s counsel discovered an internal memorandum from the prosecution recommending the death penalty in part because Ayestas was not a U.S. citizen. This memorandum had not been disclosed during Ayestas’s trial. Ayestas then sought to amend his federal habeas petition to add Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment selective-prosecution claims, arguing that the prosecution’s decision was improperly influenced by his non-citizen status.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas denied Ayestas’s motion to amend, finding it constituted a “second or successive habeas corpus application” barred by 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b) because the claims could have been discovered earlier with due diligence. Subsequent Supreme Court decisions clarified the law on what constitutes a “second or successive” application, prompting Ayestas to seek relief under Rule 60(b). The district court granted this motion, allowed discovery on Ayestas’s selective-prosecution claims, and ordered the Harris County District Attorney’s Office (HCDA) to produce decades of charging memoranda and the full prosecutorial file.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. It held that the discovery order was immediately appealable by the HCDA under the collateral-order doctrine. The Fifth Circuit determined the district court lacked jurisdiction over Ayestas’s selective-prosecution claims because both his 2015 motion to amend and his later Rule 60(b) motion constituted successive habeas applications barred by § 2244(b). The court concluded that Ayestas had not shown the claims were based on a new rule of constitutional law or that the underlying facts could not have been discovered earlier with due diligence. The Fifth Circuit vacated the discovery order and dismissed the selective-prosecution claims. View "Ayestas v. Harris County" on Justia Law

A teacher at a Texas junior high school, who is a practicing Christian, regularly engaged in prayer and Bible study with other teachers before the school day. In September 2023, she invited staff to join her in prayer at the school flagpole prior to a student-led prayer event. The school principal responded by stating that district policy prohibited employees from praying “with or in the presence of students” and clarified that even if students were not directly involved, teachers could not pray where students might see them, even before official school hours. When the teacher and colleagues prayed near the flagpole, the principal stopped them, reiterating the prohibition on visible religious conduct.The teacher filed suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, alleging violations of her First Amendment free speech and free exercise rights, as well as Fourteenth Amendment equal protection and due process claims, and state law claims. The district court denied the principal’s motion to dismiss on the grounds of qualified immunity regarding the First Amendment and equal protection claims, but granted dismissal of the due process claim. The court held that the complaint plausibly alleged a categorical, visibility-based restriction on teacher prayer, and that Kennedy v. Bremerton School District had clearly established the unconstitutionality of such conduct.On interlocutory appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the denial of qualified immunity de novo. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity for the free speech and free exercise claims, holding that a categorical ban on visible private prayer by teachers, merely because students might observe, violated clearly established First Amendment rights. However, the appellate court reversed as to the equal protection claim, finding that the teacher had not alleged facts showing the principal individually treated her differently than similarly situated employees. The disposition was affirmed in part and reversed in part. View "Barber v. Rounds" on Justia Law

The case involves an early-morning stop of Juan Jose Ponce at a border checkpoint in Sarita, Texas, where a Border Patrol agent, Carlos Garcia, questioned him and observed unusual features in his vehicle. Ponce was driving an SUV with a roof rack but was transporting a ladder inside the car, which Garcia found atypical. Ponce appeared nervous and wore a surgical mask despite traveling alone. Upon request, Ponce consented to unlocking and opening the back hatch of his SUV for Garcia to look inside. During this inspection, Garcia noticed a speaker box with loose screws, which—based on his experience—suggested it might conceal contraband or a person. Garcia opened the speaker box and found a woman unlawfully in the United States. Ponce was indicted for transporting an undocumented person.Proceedings began in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, where Ponce moved to suppress the evidence, arguing the search of the speaker box exceeded his consent and lacked probable cause. The district court held a hearing where both Ponce and Garcia testified. The court found Ponce’s consent to be valid, voluntary, and extending to containers within the vehicle. Even if consent did not reach the speaker box, the court determined Garcia obtained probable cause during his inspection. The district court denied the suppression motion, and Ponce entered a conditional guilty plea while preserving his right to appeal.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the lower court’s findings for clear error and legal conclusions de novo. The Fifth Circuit held that, based on the totality of the circumstances, Garcia obtained probable cause to search the speaker box during the consensual inspection. The court affirmed that Garcia’s actions were consistent with the Fourth Amendment, and upheld the denial of Ponce’s motion to suppress. View "USA v. Ponce" on Justia Law

The plaintiff brought employment discrimination and retaliation claims against the defendants, his former employers, alleging violations of federal and state law. After initiating the lawsuit in July 2021, the plaintiff failed over several years to respond to the defendants’ discovery requests, despite multiple court orders and continuances. The plaintiff’s attorney repeatedly missed deadlines, did not answer interrogatories or produce documents, and failed to pay court-ordered attorney’s fees. Even after the court vacated its scheduling order, delayed the trial multiple times, and assessed additional attorney’s fees, the plaintiff’s counsel did not advance the case, leading to three continuances and a case that remained undeveloped.The United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana responded to the plaintiff’s ongoing lack of participation by granting the defendants’ motion to exclude all evidence when the fourth trial date approached with no discovery completed. The plaintiff’s counsel did not attend the status conference regarding the exclusion motion despite acknowledging notice. With no admissible evidence remaining, the court then granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the case with prejudice.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed both the exclusion of evidence and the dismissal with prejudice for abuse of discretion. The court held that the district court correctly applied the standard four-factor test for exclusion of evidence as a discovery sanction and was not required to apply a heightened standard for litigation-ending sanctions. The court further found that a clear record of delay existed, lesser sanctions had proven futile, and the defendants were prejudiced by the plaintiff’s failures. Accordingly, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment dismissing the case with prejudice. View "Savage v. LaSalle Management" on Justia Law

An employee of a major defense contractor, serving in a senior internal audit role, claimed to have discovered fraudulent activity involving government contracts for military aircraft. The contractor, which assembles aircraft using parts supplied by numerous subcontractors, is subject to detailed regulatory requirements intended to ensure fair pricing, including the Truth in Negotiations Act (TINA), the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), and the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS). The plaintiff alleged that the contractor systematically ignored and concealed fraudulent inflation of cost and pricing data by its subcontractors, resulting in overbilling the government.The plaintiff brought a qui tam action under the False Claims Act (FCA), which allows private individuals to sue on behalf of the government. Previously, another relator had filed a separate FCA action against the same contractor, alleging a different fraudulent scheme: obtaining parts in bulk at a discount but charging the government full price. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas dismissed the plaintiff’s suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, ruling that the FCA’s “first-to-file” bar applied because the earlier action covered the same essential elements of fraud.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision. The appellate court found that the two complaints alleged distinct fraudulent schemes: one involving bulk pricing manipulation, and the other involving the submission of inflated subcontractor cost data. The Fifth Circuit held that the first-to-file bar under the FCA did not apply because the plaintiff’s complaint was based on a different mechanism of fraud, not merely additional details or locations of the same scheme. The court reversed the district court’s dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Ferguson v. Lockheed Martin" on Justia Law

Several employees of United Airlines challenged the company's COVID-19 vaccine mandate, alleging that United failed to provide reasonable religious and medical accommodations, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). United required all U.S. employees to be vaccinated by specific deadlines unless granted a religious or medical exemption. Employees seeking a religious accommodation needed to provide a personal statement of belief and a third-party attestation; those seeking a medical exemption had to submit supporting medical documentation. United initially planned to place all exempted employees on unpaid leave but later revised its policy for non-customer-facing employees, allowing them to work with masking and testing requirements, while customer-facing employees remained on indefinite unpaid leave.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas considered and partially granted the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. The district court rejected a class seeking injunctive relief under Rule 23(b)(2) and a subclass of employees subject to masking and testing requirements, finding that the proposed classes lacked commonality and predominance due to the individualized nature of harm and the need for separate inquiries into the circumstances of each member. The court certified a modified subclass under Rule 23(b)(3) consisting of religious-accommodation seekers who were placed on unpaid leave but excluded those with medical accommodations from the subclass.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the class certification order under an abuse of discretion standard. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting the broader classes and subclasses due to the individualized nature of the claims and in certifying the subclass of religious-accommodation seekers placed on unpaid leave. The court found that common questions predominated and that a class action was a superior method of adjudication for that subclass. View "Sambrano v. United Airlines" on Justia Law