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

After Laura S. was killed shortly after returning to Mexico, her representatives filed suit under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S. Ct. 1999 (1971), against a US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agent and his supervisor. In this case, Laura entered the country illegally, was detained in CBP custody, and subsequently signed a form indicating her decision to repatriate voluntarily. Plaintiffs alleged that Laura was coerced into signing the voluntary removal form and was denied her due process rights, causing her death.The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for defendants, holding that special factors precluded the extension of a Bivens remedy to this new context. The court also held that defendants were entitled to qualified immunity where the agent's conduct was not objectively unreasonable. View "Maria S. v. Doe" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against his employer, BNSF, for disability discrimination and retaliation after he was diagnosed with Parkinson's disease and later placed on medical leave by the company. The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment for BNSF on plaintiff's disability discrimination claim, holding that even assuming BNSF's alleged safety concerns were legitimate and non-discriminatory, the totality of the circumstances created a material fact issue as to whether BNSF's proffered reasons for refusing to reinstate plaintiff were merely pretextual.The court affirmed the district court's judgment regarding the retaliation claim and held that plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence to support a causal link between the filing of his EEOC claim and his continued placement on medical leave. The court remanded for further proceedings. View "Nall v. BNSF Railway Co." on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of qualified immunity to defendant, the chief of police, on plaintiff's hostile work environment claim where plaintiff, a police sergeant, sufficiently alleged that he sustained harassment that undermined his ability to work and defendant was deliberately indifferent to this racially hostile work environment.The court also affirmed the district court's denial of qualified immunity on 42 U.SC. 1981 claims where plaintiff's allegations of a retaliatory shift change supported a claim of unlawful retaliation that a reasonable officer would know was unlawful. However, the court reversed as to plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. 1983 First Amendment retaliation claim where defendant was entitled to qualified immunity, because it was not clearly established that an internal complaint of discrimination made only to supervisors, primarily to vindicate one's own rights, qualified as speech made as a citizen rather than as an employee. Accordingly, the court remanded for further proceedings. View "Johnson v. Halstead" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of petitioner's request for an evidentiary hearing and denial of his application for a certificate of appealability (COA). Petitioner was a member of the "Texas Seven," a group that escaped from the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and violently took hostages and stole guns and ammunition.The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying an evidentiary hearing where an evidentiary hearing would not enable petitioner to establish a right to federal habeas relief. The court also denied a COA on petitioner's claim that the state trial court violated his constitutional rights by preventing him from offering the Ranking Document as mitigating evidence, Brady violation claim, ineffective assistance of counsel claim, Enmund/Tison culpability claim, and ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim. View "Halprin v. Davis" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of petitioner's 28 U.S.C. 2254 petition for habeas corpus relief, holding that the Mississippi Supreme Court's decision was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established law. The court held that Grim v. Fisher, 816 F.3d 296 (5th Cir. 2016), barred petitioner from habeas relief. Grim applied Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. 647 (2011), to a case in which a crime laboratory supervisor -- rather than an analyst, as in the case here -- testified at trial, and held that such testimony did not violate clearly established law. View "Jenkins v. Hall" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of petitioner's ineffective assistance of counsel claim. The court held that the magistrate judge should have held an evidentiary hearing to investigate petitioner's allegations of an actual conflict of interest, and failure to do so was an abuse of discretion under established precedents. In this case, petitioner presented evidence that his counsel advised one of his co-defendants to plead guilty, prior to his own plea agreement, and that his counsel did so in a manner that prejudiced petitioner's defense. View "United States v. Harrison" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of a petition for habeas corpus relief based on the ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC). The court held that the district court correctly determined that the one-year limitation period began on August 7, 2012, and therefore petitioner's IAC claim was time-barred. Likewise, the court also held that petitioner's IAC claim was procedurally foreclosed because petitioner failed to show the cause of his default where the factual predicate of the IAC claim was reasonably available at the time of his first petitions. View "Ford v. Davis" on Justia Law

After plaintiff filed a pro se complaint under 42 U.S.C. 1983, seeking damages for his mistreatment at various civil commitment facilities and a county jail, the Fifth Circuit vacated the district court's sua sponte dismissal of the complaint and remanded. In this appeal, plaintiff challenged another sua sponte dismissal.The court affirmed in part, holding that plaintiff failed to state a due process claim based on his confinement in El Paso and Fort Worth. The court held that plaintiff has stated a due process claim against Anderson and Tarrant County, but not Defendant Taylor, for his post-bond confinement at the Cold Springs Jail. However, plaintiff failed to state a claim for his post-acquittal confinement at the Cold Springs Jail. The court also held that plaintiff failed to state a retaliation claim against Defendant Taylor but stated a claim against Defendant Basham; and the district court abused its discretion in denying plaintiff leave to amend his complaint to include the claims against defendants in their official capacity. Accordingly, the court vacated in part and remanded for further proceedings. View "Brown v. Taylor" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's order dismissing plaintiff's claims under the Fair Housing Act (FHA), challenging a resolution requiring the Mississippi state flag to be flown over city hall and other municipal buildings, based on lack of standing. The court held that plaintiffs, a non-profit organization and various residents of Ocean Springs, lacked Article III standing because exposure to the Mississippi state flag did not constitute an injury sufficient to confer standing for an equal protection claim. Furthermore, plaintiffs' allegations failed to establish statutory standing under the FHA as aggrieved persons because the only act that they alleged -- the City's resolution requiring the Mississippi state flag to be flown over public buildings -- was not a discriminatory housing practice. The court denied the City's motion for sanctions and costs against plaintiffs and their counsel. View "Mississippi Rising Coalition v. City of Ocean Springs" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction and dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. 1983 complaint with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915A. Plaintiff argued that the composition of the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles violated his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The court held that plaintiff failed to allege a violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States, and thus the district court properly dismissed the section 1983 complaint on the merits. The court reasoned that plaintiff's allegations did not reflect the complete lack of process that the court has held may violate the minimal due process protections that exist in the clemency context. View "Garcia v. Jones" on Justia Law