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

Plaintiff brought suit against her former employer, claiming racial discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the employer and plaintiff appealed. The court held that because plaintiff had presented a genuine issue of material fact concerning the employer's proffered reason for firing her, the district court's grant of summary judgment was reversed and the case was remanded for a trial on the merits.

Plaintiff appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment on his claims against defendants, under 42 U.S.C. 1983, for wrongful termination. The court held that UTMB was entitled to immunity from suit where plaintiff conceded that UTMB was a state agency and failed to argue that Texas had consented to suit, nor had Congress expressly waived sovereign immunity from section 1983 suits. The court also held that, putting aside plaintiff's purported property interest in his employment, plaintiff failed to identify a genuine dispute that his termination was arbitrary or capricious, or that the decision was made without professional judgment. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court was affirmed.

Plaintiffs sued law enforcement officers for excess use of force, assault and battery, and unlawful entry after the officers breached the locked door to the private bedroom of plaintiffs' 27-year-old son, Scott, to arrest him for threatening his mother. Scott attacked the officers with two knives, and in the ensuing melee, the officers shot and killed him. The court held that the officers' use of deadly force was objectively reasonable. Because the court held that Scott's Fourth Amendment right to be free from the use of excessive force was not violated, the court need not consider the issue of whether that right was clearly established. The court also affirmed the district court's grant of official immunity to the officers on plaintiffs' assault-and-battery claims; unlawful-entry claims; and warrantless arrest claims. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment on all claims.

Plaintiff sued defendants under Title VII, alleging claims of racial harassment and constructive discharge. Plaintiff subsequently appealed the district court's dismissal of his complaint based on a finding that plaintiff committed perjury and the district court's grant of defendants' motion for sanctions. Plaintiff argued that a less severe sanction was more appropriate and that the district court should have held an evidentiary hearing to allow plaintiff to explain his conflicting testimony. Plaintiff's counsel, who was separately sanctioned, also appealed the denial of his motion for recusal of the magistrate judge. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in deciding to dismiss plaintiff's complaint with prejudice where plaintiff plainly committed perjury; plaintiff's argument that the district court failed to hold a hearing was meritless where he made no effort to explain why he and his attorney failed to show at the hearing held by the district court to address objections to the magistrate judge's report; and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying counsel's motion for recusal where a reasonable person would not question the magistrate judge's impartiality in this case. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.

Plaintiff sued the Louisiana State Board of Practical Nurse Examiners, claiming its status requirement violated the Constitution when the Board denied her a license solely on account of her immigration status. Plaintiff was an alien who had applied for permanent residence. The district court granted the Board summary judgment on all grounds. The court held that because applicants for permanent resident status did not constitute a suspect class under the Equal Protection Clause, and a rational basis supported the immigration-status requirement, the judgment was affirmed.

Plaintiffs filed a civil action against St. Tammany Parish Sheriff Rodney Strain and Deputies Bryan Steinert, Julie Boynton, and Wayne Wicker, each in their individual and official capacities. Plaintiffs brought claims for negligence under Louisiana state law and for deliberate indifference based on the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The only three issues to survive summary judgment were the state-law negligence claims and the section 1983 claims against Steinert in his personal capacity and Strain in his official capacity. At issue were the two section 1983 claims. The court dismissed Steinert's appeal for lack of jurisdiction because he challenged the district court's factual conclusions on interlocutory appeal. The court dismissed Strain's appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Strain was being sued in his official capacity, the suit against him was "in essence" a suit against a municipality, and municipal governments could not raise immunity defenses on interlocutory appeal.

In this equal protection case, plaintiff appealed from a grant of summary judgment in favor of the School Board. The district court rejected plaintiff's claim that the School Board's student assignment plan, formulated to address school population changes while "maintaining the district's unitary status," was impermissibly race-based and discriminatory against minority elementary, middle, and high school students zoned for East Ascension High School. At issue on appeal was whether child A had standing; prescription of plaintiff's claims based upon the 2002 feeder plan modification; and whether Option 2f violated the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause. The court held that because it remanded on other grounds, the court vacated the district court's ruling on whether plaintiff had standing to pursue claims on behalf of child A and remanded for reconsideration by the district court in the first instance as to whether to permit plaintiff to cure his defective allegations of capacity. The court also held that the district court correctly held that the 2002 feeder plan modifications claims were time-barred. The court finally held that because factual questions existed as to whether Option 2f had both a racially discriminatory motive and a disparate impact, and the district court misapprehended the significance of the evidence before it, that court erred in awarding summary judgment under a rational basis test. Accordingly, further factual development was required.

Plaintiff sued Hudspeth County and Sheriff West under 42 U.S.C. 1983 for violation of his rights under the Fourth Amendment. The district court granted summary judgment for Hudspeth County but not for West, finding that genuine disputes of material fact precluded a determination of the application of qualified immunity. In particular, the district court found genuine disputes existed as to West's knowledge of plaintiff's status as an El Paso Police Department (EPPD) officer and plaintiff's authority to operate in Hudspeth County as part of the 34th Judicial District task force. The court affirmed the judgment of the district court where West failed to show legal error in the district court's analysis.

Plaintiff brought suit under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12102, against defendant for failing to provide a reasonable employment accommodation in consideration of his diabetes. The district court entered summary judgment in favor of defendant. The court held that because plaintiff's diabetes treatment regiment required only modest dietary and lifestyle changes, no genuine issue existed as to whether his impairment substantially limited his eating. Therefore, the district court properly concluded that plaintiff was not disabled within the meaning of the ADA. The court also held that, based upon the record evidence, no reasonable juror could conclude that defendant was unwilling to, in good faith, participate in an interactive process to reasonably accommodate plaintiff's needs. Accordingly, the judgment was affirmed.

Plaintiffs, Mr. and Ms. Jimenez, sued the County under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging constitutional violations stemming from their arrests. Ms. Jimenez claimed that, because she was arrested for a minor offense, she could be strip-searched only upon reasonable suspicion that she was concealing weapons or contraband. The jury ultimately returned a verdict for Ms. Jimenez, the court entered a final judgment against the County, awarding Ms. Jimenez for past and future mental anguish, as well as punitive damages. The County appealed and a panel of the court affirmed. The court granted rehearing en banc and vacated the panel opinion. Because the County had not demonstrated reversible error in the jury instructions in this case, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. The court reinstated Parts III, IV, and V of the panel opinion, which rejected other arguments that the County had not urged on rehearing.