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

Defendant pleaded guilty to failing to register as a sex offender and subsequently challenged a life-term special condition of supervised release requiring him to install computer filtering software blocking/monitoring access to sexually oriented websites for any computer he possesses or uses. The court concluded that the district court abused its discretion in imposing the software-installation special condition provision at issue when, inter alia, neither defendant's failure-to-register offense nor his criminal history has any connection to computer use or the Internet. The district court's general concerns about recidivism or that defendant would use a computer to perpetrate future sex-crimes are insufficient to justify the imposition of an otherwise unrelated software-installation special condition. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded for entry of the corrected judgment. View "United States v. Fernandez" on Justia Law

The underlying litigation in this appeal stemmed from WM's suit against a former employee for misappropriating confidential business information and violating the terms of his employment agreement. This appeal arose from a contempt proceeding ancillary to the merits of the underlying case where Michael A. Moore, the attorney for the employee, appealed the imposition of sanctions following a finding that Moore was in civil contempt. The court concluded that the district court's finding that Moore participated in an attempt to mislead the court as to the existence of a thumb disk drive is clearly erroneous; Moore's failure to comply with the terms of a preliminary injunction by not producing an iPad image was excusable because the order required Moore to violate the attorney-client privilege; and requiring Moore to produce the iPad itself also violated the attorney-client privilege. Accordingly, the court vacated the judgment of the district court. The court denied Moore's motion to remove WM as appellee. View "Waste Mgmt. of WA v. Kattler" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against AQHA, alleging violations of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1, 2, and Texas antitrust law. Plaintiffs' allegations stemmed from votes by the Stud Book and Registration Committee of the AQHA, which had blocked AQHA registration of horses created through somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT or cloning). On appeal, AQHA challenged the district court's denial of its motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL). The court concluded that reasonable jurors could not draw any inference of conspiracy from the evidence presented, because it neither tends to exclude the possibility of independent action nor does it suggest the existence of any conspiracy at all. Therefore, the court concluded that the JMOL motion should have been granted in the absence of substantial evidence on the issue of an illegal conspiracy to restrain trade under Section 1 of the Act. Further, the Section 2 claim failed as a matter of law because AQHA is not a competitor in the allegedly relevant market for elite Quarter Horses. Accordingly, the court reversed and rendered judgment for AQHA. View "Abraham & Veneklasen Joint Venture v. American Quarter Horse Assoc." on Justia Law

Borg Warner appealed the district court's determination that it is liable to Vine Street for 75% of the costs associated with cleaning up a plume of perchlorethylene (PERC) that discharged from a dry cleaning business under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. 9607(a)(3), and the Texas Solid Waste Disposal Act (TSWDA), Tex. Health & Safety Code 361.271(a)(3). The liability was associated with a former subsidiary of Borg Warner, Norge, which furnished dry cleaning equipment, design assistance, and an initial supply of PERC to the cleaning business. The court concluded that Borg Warner is entitled to judgment in its favor on the CERCLA and TSWDA claims because Norge did not intentional y dispose of a waste product when it sold dry cleaning equipment and an initial supply of PERC to the dry cleaning business. The court noted that the Supreme Court's decision in Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. United States changed the relevant law while this case was on appeal. Therefore, the court held that the district court's decision cannot stand in light of Burlington Northern. View "Vine Street LLC v. Keeling" on Justia Law

After plaintiff was terminated, she filed suit against the City and Chief Freddie Cannon under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that the termination was a result of engaging in protected speech under the First Amendment. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendants where plaintiff, a sergeant with the police department, made critical statements against the Chief on her Facebook page and such statements were not within the ordinary scope of her duties as a police officer. Therefore, the statements on Facebook were speech made as a citizen. Further, considering the content, form, and context of plaintiff's speech, the court held that the speech is not entitled to First Amendment protection where plaintiff's speech was primarily motivated by and primarily addressed her displeasure with the Chief and not a matter of public concern. Even assuming that plaintiff spoke as a citizen on a matter of public concern, she failed to demonstrated that her interests outweigh those of defendants to maintain discipline and close working relationships, while preventing insubordination within the police department. View "Graziosi v. City of Greenville" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, members of the Trent family, filed suit against police officers under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging violations of their Fourth Amendment rights to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. After Defendant Wade, a patrol officer, was involved in a high speed chase with a Trent family member, he entered and searched the Trents' home without knocking and announcing his presence, and then seized and impounded the Trents' ATV. Plaintiffs alleged that Defendant Walling, in his official capacity as Chief of Police, is a policymaker for the city and is liable under under Monell v. Department of Social Services of the City of New York. The court affirmed the district court's denial of the motion for summary judgment as to plaintiffs' claim against Wade for the no-knock entry where there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether a reasonable officer would have taken into consideration that the other occupants at the home, at 2:00 a.m., were awake and aware of his authority and purpose; reversed as to plaintiffs' claim against Wade for the seizure of the ATV where Texas law allowed Wade to seize the ATV and where he was lawfully present on plaintiffs' property when he effected the seizure; and dismissed the appeal as to Walling for lack of jurisdiction because qualified immunity is not at issue in the claim against him. View "Trent v. Wade" on Justia Law

Movant seeks authorization to file a successive 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion, seeking to challenge his conviction for assault on federal property resulting in serious bodily injury. The court held that it may authorize the filing of a second or successive section 2255 motion if the movant makes a prima facie showing that his claims rely upon "a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable." In this case, the court concluded that plaintiff failed to show that he relies on any new rules of constitutional law that have been made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court. None of the cases on which Movant relies, including Begay v. United States, Johnson v. United States, and Descampsv. United States, authorizes him to file his proposed successive section 2255 motion. Accordingly, the court denied the motion. View "In Re: Julius Jackson" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against Reliance Standard after she was denied extended long-term disability benefits. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Reliance Standard and plaintiff appealed. The court concluded that Reliance Standard's decision to deny benefits was supported by substantial evidence where the record demonstrated that plaintiff can perform all of the job duties of a sedentary vocation on a full-time basis before discontinuing benefits; Reliance Standard provided a full and fair review of plaintiff's claim; Reliance Standard's decision was not "procedurally unreasonable;" and Reliance Standard did not improperly fail to allow plaintiff to supplement the administrative record. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Killen v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, filed suit alleging that prison officials violated his constitutional rights by failing to respond to his grievances about prison conditions and procedures. The magistrate judge dismissed plaintiff's claims, construing defendants' motion as a motion for summary judgment. The court rejected plaintiff's arguments that he did not need to exhaust his administrative remedies before filing suit because the prison grievance process was unconstitutional and because the prison failed to respond to his grievances. Accordingly, the court concluded that there is no genuine issue of material fact as to whether plaintiff exhausted his administrative remedies. The court affirmed the magistrate's dismissal. View "Wilson v. Epps" on Justia Law

Defendant, pro se and in forma pauperis, appealed the denial of his 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion as time-barred. Defendant claimed that an amended judgment, entered after his sentence was modified under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(b), recommences the one-year limitations period under section 2255(f)(1). Defendant also argued that the motion was timely because Alleyne v. United States applies retroactively to cases on collateral review. The court rejected defendant's arguments, concluding that defendant's motion was untimely under section 2255(f)(1) because the sentence reduction has no impact on the finality of defendant's conviction. Further, the court agreed with all of its sister circuits and held that Alleyne is not within the "watershed" exception. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Olvera" on Justia Law