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

Plaintiffs, death-row inmates at a new state-of-the-art prison facility that has no air conditioning, filed suit against the State and various prison officials, alleging that the heat that they endure during the summer months violates the Eighth Amendment because of their pre-existing medical problems. Plaintiffs also allege that the failure to provide air conditioning violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12132, and the Rehabilitation Act (RA), 29 U.S.C. 794. Plaintiffs suffer from various conditions such as hypertension, obesity, diabetes, depression, and high cholesterol. The district court sustained the inmates’ Eighth Amendment claims, rejected their disability claims, and issued an injunction effectively ordering defendants to install air conditioning throughout death row. The court concluded that, although the trial court’s findings of deliberate indifference by prison officials to these particular inmates’ serious heat-related vulnerability suffice to support a constitutional violation, the scope of its injunctive relief exceeds the court's prior precedent, Gates v. Cook, and the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 18 U.S.C. 3626. However, the disability claims are insupportable as a matter of law even under the expanded legal definition of disability. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Ball v. LeBlanc" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs are two same-sex couples who seek to marry in Texas or to have their marriage in another state recognized in Texas. The district court subsequently issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting the state from enforcing any laws or regulations prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying or prohibiting the recognition of marriages between same-sex couples lawfully solemnized elsewhere. While the appeal was under submission, the Supreme Court decided Obergefell v. Hodges, which held in part that there is no lawful basis for a State to refuse to recognize a lawful same sex marriage performed in another State on the ground of its same-sex character. Because, as both sides now agree, the injunction appealed from is correct in light of Obergefell, the preliminary injunction is affirmed and the matter remanded for entry of judgment in favor of plaintiffs. View "DeLeon v. Abbott" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, seven same-sex couples and an organization whose membership includes same-sex couples and their families, seek to marry in Louisiana or to have their marriage in another state recognized in Louisiana. The district court granted summary judgment to defendants. While this appeal was under submission, the Supreme Court decided Obergefell v. Hodges, which held in part that there is no lawful basis for a state to refuse to recognize a lawful same-sex marriage performed in another state on the ground of its same-sex character. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for entry of judgment in favor of plaintiffs. View "Robicheaux v. Caldwell" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against the County, District Attorney Pat Lykos, and one of her assistants, Rachel Palmer, for causing their termination by the college that had contracted to oversee breath alcohol testing for the Sheriff's Office. Plaintiffs also raised state law claims. The district court dismissed all of the claims. The court reversed the dismissal of plaintiff's claims against the County that it ratified Palmer's and Lykos's alleged retaliatory campaign; reversed the dismissal of the tortious interference with a contract claim; reversed the dismissal of tortious interference claims; and reversed the award of attorneys' fees. The court affirmed in all other respects. View "Culbertson v. Lykos" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, religious organizations, filed suit under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), 42 U.S.C. 2000bb to 2000bb-4, challenging a requirement that they either offer their employees health insurance that covers certain contraceptive services or submit a form or notification declaring their religious opposition to that coverage. The district court enjoined the government from enforcing the requirement. The court concluded that the acts plaintiffs are required to perform do not involve providing or facilitating access to contraceptives, and plaintiffs have no right under RFRA to challenge the independent conduct of third parties. Because plaintiffs have not shown that the regulations substantially burden their religious exercise or, in University of Dallas, have not demonstrated a substantial likelihood of doing so, the court need not reach the strict-scrutiny prong or the other requirements for an injunction. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment of the district court. View "East Texas Baptist Univ. v. Burwell" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against FISD, alleging that FISD discriminated against him because of his race and retaliated against him for reporting the discrimination, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq., and the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA), Tex. Labor Code 21.051, 21.055. The court concluded that FISD's collateral-estoppel claim fails because plaintiff did not have an adequate opportunity to litigate his pending discrimination and retaliation claims before the hearing examiner; FISD is not entitled to summary judgment against plaintiff's discrimination claim because FISD conceded at oral argument that there is a genuine dispute for pretext and a genuine dispute of material fact exists for whether the allegedly discriminatory animus is imputed to FISD; and FISD is not entitled to summary judgment against plaintiff's retaliation claim where there is a genuine dispute of material fact for why plaintiff's contract was nonrenewed. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Jackson v. Frisco Indep. Sch. Dist." on Justia Law

Zastrow appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment on their claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. 961–1968, and 42 U.S.C. 1981 and 1982. The court concluded that plaintiff has not shown that defendants’ alleged predicate acts amount to or constitute a threat of continuing racketeering activity; even if plaintiff had produced evidence of a pattern of racketeering activity, he has not demonstrated the existence of an enterprise; and therefore, the district court properly granted summary judgment on plaintiff's breach of contract claim dressed in civil RICO garb. The court also concluded that because plaintiff has alleged that Mercedes Greenway refused to sell him parts after he testified in support of some clients' discrimination claims, he has stated a claim for retaliation under section 1981. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment on plaintiff's RICO claim and his section 1982 claim, but vacated as to the section 1981 claim, remanding for further proceedings. View "Zastrow v. Houston Auto Imports Greenway" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a Texas prisoner, filed suit alleging that prison officials were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs, causing him injury and violating his constitutional rights. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants. The court concluded that plaintiff's appeal is not frivolous and his motion to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. The court also concluded that further briefing is unnecessary and therefore turned to the merits. In this case, defendants failed to establish that there was an available procedure plaintiff did not exhaust. Without knowing what the applicable grievance procedures is, it is impossible to determine whether plaintiff exhausted them. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Cantwell v. Sterling" on Justia Law

Texas abortion providers filed suit against the State seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against the enforcement of amendments to Texas's law regulating abortions. At issue is H.B. 2’s physician admitting privileges requirement as applied to a McAllen and an El Paso abortion facility, as well as H.B. 2’s requirement that abortion facilities satisfy the standards set for ambulatory surgical centers (ASC) facially and as applied to the McAllen and El Paso abortion facilities. In regards to the facial challenge to the admitting privileges requirement, the district court erred by granting unrequested relief. In doing so, the district court also ran afoul of the holding and mandate in Abbott II, and the principles of res judicata. In regards to the facial challenge of the ASC requirement and the ASC requirement in the context of medication abortions, res judicata bars these claims. On the merits, the ASC requirements are rationally related to a legitimate state interest and have not been shown to have an improper purpose or impose an undue burden.The court affirmed in part and modified in part the district court’s injunction of the admitting privileges and ASC requirements as applied to McAllen, as follows: (1) The State is enjoined from enforcing section 135.51 - .56 and 135.41 of the ASC regulations against the abortion facility in McAllen when that facility is used to provide abortions to women residing in the Rio Grande Valley, until such time as another licensed abortion facility becomes available to provide abortions at a location nearer to the Rio Grande Valley than San Antonio; (2) The State is enjoined from enforcing the admitting privileges requirement against Dr. Lynn when he provides abortions at the abortion facility located in McAllen to women residing in the Rio Grande Valley. The remainder of the injunction as to the McAllen facility is vacated. Because H.B. 2 does not place a substantial obstacle in the path of those women seeking an abortion in the El Paso area, the court held that the district court erred in sustaining plaintiffs’ as applied challenge in El Paso. The court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of plaintiffs’ equal-protection and unlawful-delegation claims. View "Whole Woman's Health v. Lakey" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a probationary Border Patrol agent, filed suit against the Department, alleging that he had been unlawfully terminated because of his race and color. The court concluded that, even assuming that plaintiff established a prima facie case of discrimination, the government has asserted a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for plaintiff's termination, lack of candor. Plaintiff failed to show that the Department's decision was made in bad faith and there is no evidence of disparate treatment. Finally, the court rejected plaintiff's claim that he was similarly situated to permanent Border Patrol agents who were present at the Checkpoint at issue. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Department. View "Thomas v. Johnson" on Justia Law