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

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

Blackman was convicted of murder in 1998 and sentenced to life imprisonment. In a successive Section 2255 application, she challenged her conviction under Brady v. Maryland, Napue v. Illinois, and Giglio v. United States. The claim was based on the inconsistency between a detectives trial testimony that a witness had positively identified Blackman in the lineup and the prosecutor’s note indicating hesitation. The district court dismissed the petition. The Fifth Circuit affirmed. The petition did not fulfill the stringent requirements of 28 U.S.C. 2244(b)(2)(B). Even if Blackman could establish that she exercised due diligence in discovering the basis for her claims, the newly discovered evidence, taken together with the proof adduced at trial, does not show “by clear and convincing evidence” that, but for the prosecution’s misconduct, “no reasonable factfinder would have found her guilty” of murder. The district court was not authorized to grant a certificate of appealability on the merits of Blackman’s claims while also determining that her petition ultimately failed to meet the statutory prerequisites for a successive try at federal habeas relief. View "Blackman v. Davis" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against the medical administrator and a medical services contractor for the Mississippi Department of Corrections, alleging that defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights by failing to provide medically necessary hip replacement and reconstructive surgery. The district court granted summary judgment for defendants.The Fifth Circuit held that the district court properly granted summary judgment in the contractor's favor because there was no evidence that he failed to take reasonable measures to abate a substantial risk of serious harm to plaintiff. However, because the district court failed to address the Ex parte Young exception to sovereign immunity for claims for prospective injunctive relief as to the administrator, the court held that the injunctive relief claim should be remanded. The court further held that factual disputes about the reason for the delay prevented it from determining whether the administrator violated plaintiff's constitutional rights. Therefore, the court reversed as to this claim and remanded for further proceedings. Finally, the court vacated the district court's judgment denying appointment of counsel and remanded for reconsideration. View "Delaughter v. Woodall" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit denied a petition for rehearing en banc; treated the petition for rehearing en banc as a petition for panel rehearing; and granted the petition for panel rehearing. The court withdrew its prior opinion and substituted the following opinion.Three exotic dancers under the age of 21 filed suit challenging Louisiana's amendment of two statutes (Act No. 395) that required entertainers on premises licensed to serve alcohol and whose breasts or buttocks are exposed to view be 21 years of age or older. The district court concluded that plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their claims that the Act was unconstitutionally overbroad and vague, and issued a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of the Act.The court vacated the injunction and held that the district court erred in holding that the Act was overbroad, either for the lack of narrow tailoring necessary under United States v. O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367, 376 (1968), or for "substantial overbreadth" under such cases as Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 612 (1973). Determining that plaintiffs had standing to bring their vagueness claim, the court held that the Act survived a facial challenge for vagueness. The court explained that it was enough that the Act required the full coverage of commonly understood anatomical terms. Accordingly, the court remanded for further proceedings. View "Doe v. Marine-Lombard" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit denied petitioner's application for a certificate of appealability (COA) to challenge the denial of his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) motion. The court held that there were no extraordinary circumstances meriting Rule 60(b)(6) relief. The court held that, even if petitioner's claims were not procedurally defaulted under Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1, 14 (2012), and Trevino v. Thaler, 569 U.S. 413, 428 (2013), he was ineligible for Rule 60(b)(6) relief. Furthermore, petitioner neither alleged racial discrimination nor demonstrated how his claims gave rise to the sort of pernicious injury that affects communities at large. View "Raby v. Davis" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for the employer in an action alleging retaliation under Texas law. The court held that, although the district court erred by concluding that New Mexico law applied in this case, the protected conduct plaintiff described was not a but-for cause of their terminations. The court explained that an employee bringing a retaliation claim under the Texas Occupational Code must demonstrate that he would not have been terminated but for his protected conduct. In this case, plaintiffs' refusal to train a patient independently was not a necessary, or but-for, cause of the firings. View "Almeida v. Bio-Medical Applications of Texas, Inc." on Justia Law