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

Plaintiff, a Texas inmate, filed a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action against defendants, alleging violations of his Eighth Amendment rights, because he was housed in unconstitutional conditions and that various defendants were deliberately indifferent to his health and safety. At issue on appeal were plaintiff's individual-capacity claims.Determining that the notice of appeal was timely, the Fifth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Defendants Riojas, Cortez, Hunter, Davidson, Swaney, Martinez, Stevens, and Henderson on plaintiff's claim related to the conditions of his cells; reversed and remanded summary judgment for Defendants Riojas, Martinez, and Ortiz on plaintiff's claim related to their failure to take him to the restroom; affirmed summary judgment for Defendant Henderson on the failure to take him to the restroom claim; affirmed summary judgment for Defendants Riojas, Martinez, and Henderson on plaintiff's claim related to their failure to treat his chest pain; affirmed summary judgment for Defendant Orr on plaintiff's claim related to Orr's failure to treat his bladder pain; and affirmed summary judgment for Defendant Stevens on plaintiff's claim that Stevens promulgated an unconstitutional policy. View "Taylor v. Stevens" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit granted the petition for panel rehearing and withdrew its prior opinion, substituting the following opinion.The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment on plaintiff's discrimination and retaliation claims under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. 1981. The court held that plaintiff failed to present a genuine issue of material fact that her race was a motivating factor in her termination or that there was a causal connection between her EEOC complaint and the termination. In this case, plaintiff was terminated as a part of a group of layoffs designed to offset the city's budget shortfall. View "Harville v. City of Houston" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Warren and Benfield, paramedics, filed suit against their boss, the EMS Administrator, alleging that he fired them for exercising their First Amendment free-speech and free-association rights. The district court held that defendant was entitled to qualified immunity for Benfield's free-association claim but not for Warren's or Benfield's free-speech claims.The Fifth Circuit held that Warren failed to show that defendant violated one of his constitutional rights. In this case, because Warren failed to allege the requisite causal connection between his June 2015 letter and his firing, he has not alleged an element of his First Amendment retaliatory-discharge claim. The court also held that, because defendant made no substantive argument for dismissing Benfield’s free-speech claim, the district court did not err in refusing to address the issue sua sponte. Finally, the court denied Warren's request to replead his claims. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's denial of qualified immunity for Warren's free-speech claim and rendered judgment for defendant on that claim; affirmed the district court's judgment not to dismiss Benfield's free-speech claim; and remanded for further proceedings. View "Benfield v. Magee" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of appellants' challenges to the Texas Sex Offender Registration Program. The Program is codified in Chapter 62 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure.The court held that procedural due process challenges to Chapter 62 failed because conviction of a sex offense entails all requisite process for the state to impose sex-offender conditions. The court also held that ex post facto, Eighth Amendment, and double jeopardy challenges do not cross the minimum pleading threshold because Chapter 62 is nonpunitive. In this case, appellants claims to the contrary were unpersuasive. View "Doe v. Abbott" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit withdrew its prior opinion and substituted the following opinion.After Officer John Doe was injured during a public protest, he filed suit against Black Lives Matter, the group associated with the protest and Defendant Mckesson, one of the leaders and organizers of the group. Determining that it had jurisdiction to hear this case, the court held that Officer Doe failed to adequately allege that Mckesson was vicariously liable for the conduct of the unknown assailant or that Mckesson entered into a civil conspiracy with the purpose of injuring Officer Doe. However, the court found that Officer Doe adequately alleged that Mckesson was liable in negligence for organizing and leading the Baton Rouge demonstration to illegally occupy a highway, and that the district court erred in dismissing the suit on First Amendment grounds.The court also held that the district court erred by taking judicial notice of the legal status of Black Lives Matter, but nonetheless found that Officer Doe did not plead facts that would allow the court to conclude that Black Lives Matter was an entity capable of being sued. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Doe v. Mckesson" on Justia Law

The Gestational Age Act, a Mississippi law that prohibits abortions, with limited exceptions, after 15 weeks' gestational age is an unconstitutional ban on pre-viability abortions.The Fifth Circuit held that states may regulate abortion procedures prior to viability so long as they do not impose an undue burden on the woman's right, but they may not ban abortions. The court held that the law at issue is a ban on certain pre-viability abortions, which Planned Parenthood of Se. Pa. v. Casey does not tolerate and which presents a situation unlike that in Gonzales v. Carhart. The court explained that, with respect to bans like this one, the Supreme Court's viability framework has already balanced the state's asserted interests and found them wanting: Until viability, it is for the woman, not the state, to weigh any risks to maternal health and to consider personal values and beliefs in deciding whether to have an abortion.The court also held that the district court was within its discretion in limiting discovery of the issue of viability and excluding expert testimony regarding fetal pain perception. Finally, the court upheld the district court's award of permanent injunctive relief. View "Jackson Women's Health Organization v. Dobbs" on Justia Law

After Alisha Trevino died from a self-administered overdose of illegal drugs while in police custody, members of her family filed suit against the city under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of the city's motion to dismiss and denial of plaintiffs' motion for a new trial.The court held that the district court did not err in denying Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) relief where failure to file a response to a motion to dismiss is not a manifest error of law or fact, nor is it a manifest error to deny relief when failure to file was within plaintiffs' counsel's "reasonable control." The court also held that the district court reasonably determined that there was no excusable neglect in this case warranting relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1). View "Trevino v. City of Fort Worth" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit granted the petition for panel rehearing, withdrew its prior opinion, and substituted the following opinion.Walmart filed a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action against the TABC, challenging Texas statutes that govern the issuance of permits allowing for the retail sale of liquor in Texas (package store permits). Section 22.16 of the Texas Alcohol Beverage Code prohibits public corporations from obtaining package store permits in Texas. TPSA later intervened as a matter of right in defense of the statutes.The Fifth Circuit held that the district court erred in its findings regarding the public corporation ban’s discriminatory purpose. The court held that, although the district court correctly cited the Arlington framework, some of its discriminatory purpose findings were infirm. In this case, the record did not support only one resolution of the factual issue, because there was evidence that could support the district court's finding of a purpose to discriminate. Therefore, the court vacated and remanded in part for a reweighing of the evidence.The court also held that the district court committed clear error in finding that Section 22.16 was enacted with a purpose to discriminate against interstate commerce, and the facially neutral ban did not have a discriminatory effect. The court vacated the district court's judgment that the public corporation ban violated the dormant Commerce Clause, and remanded for reconsideration of whether the ban was enacted with a discriminatory purpose. The court also held that the district court erred in its analysis when it determined that section 22.16 violates the dormant Commerce Clause under the Pike test. Therefore, the court rendered judgment in favor of defendants on the claim that an impermissible burden existed under the Pike test.The court affirmed in part the district court's judgment rejecting Walmart's Equal Protection challenge to the public corporation ban, and held that the ban was rationally related to the state's legitimate purpose of reducing the availability and consumption of liquor throughout Texas. Finally, Walmart's challenges to section 22.04 and 22.05 are withdrawn in light of House Bill 1545. View "Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Texas Alcohol Beverage Commission" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to law enforcement officers in an excessive force action filed under 42 U.S.C. 1983 by the estate of the deceased. The court held that the evidence did not raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the officers' use of deadly force violated the deceased's Fourth Amendment rights. Therefore, the officers were entitled to qualified immunity. In this case, the officers had probable cause to conclude that the deceased posed a serious threat of physical injury or death where the officers thought they were confronting an unpredictable man armed with a dangerous weapon. View "Garza v. Briones" on Justia Law

After plaintiff was fired from her position with Workforce Solution, she filed suit against the employer for discrimination. Plaintiff had been employed at Workforce Solution for 17 years and was terminated six months before she would have been eligible for retirement. The court held that Workforce Solutions was not the State of Texas and did not enjoy sovereign immunity. The court reasoned that, because Tarrant County, the City of Arlington, and the City of Fort Worth are not the State of Texas, they obviously cannot confer the State's sovereign immunity upon a board by interlocal agreement. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's judgment and remanded for further proceedings. View "Cutrer v. Tarrant County Local Workforce Development Board" on Justia Law