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

The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal of a petition for habeas corpus based on lack of jurisdiction. At issue was whether petitioner was "in custody" under the challenged state court judgment. The court held that, because it was undisputed that petitioner will be civilly committed upon the completion of his criminal sentence, he was "in custody" under the civil commitment order when he filed his 28 U.S.C. 2254 petition. Accordingly, the court remanded for the district court to consider the petition in the first instance. View "Rubio v. Davis" on Justia Law

After the dismissal of defendant's 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion, he filed a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) motion to alter the judgment. The district court dismissed the Rule 59(e) motion without an evidentiary hearing.The Fifth Circuit held that it did not have jurisdiction to review defendant's claims because the Rule 59(e) motion constituted a successive 28 U.S.C. 2255 application under Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 532 (2005). The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant an evidentiary hearing because he has not provided independent indicia of the merit of his allegations. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part and dismissed in part. View "United States v. McDaniels" on Justia Law

Three Expo filed suit against the City and sought a preliminary injunction preventing the City from enforcing Resolution No. 160308, which denied Three Expo's requests to contract with the City to hold a three-day adult entertainment expo at the Dallas Convention Center. The district court denied Three Expo's motion for a preliminary injunction.The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's judgment, holding Three Expo established the three elements required for standing on each of its claims and should be permitted to proceed with its suit. The court held that the district court's decision that Three Expo lacked standing was based on clear errors in the factual findings and the district court's manifest failure to apply the well-established principles of law governing Article III standing to the entire evidence of record. View "Three Expo Events, LLC v. City of Dallas" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Chapter 121 of the Texas Human Resources Code (THRC), alleging that CSL Plasma did not accept plaintiffs' plasma donations based on plaintiffs' disabilities. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the action and held that CSL Plasma was not a "service establishment" within the definition of "public accommodation" under the ADA. The court explained that CSL Plasma paid plaintiffs for the inconvenience of donating plasma so that it can collect a commercially valuable asset. The court certified the THRC issue to the Supreme Court of Texas. View "Silguero v. CSL Plasma, Inc." on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of a petition for habeas corpus relief as untimely. The court held that petitioner failed to present new evidence of actual innocence under Moore v. Quarterman, 534 F.3d 454 (5th Cir. 2008), and thus he failed to make the showing necessary for this court to consider his claims despite the expired limitations period. In this case, petitioner failed to establish that affidavits supporting his claim of actual innocence were unavailable to counsel at the time of trial. View "Hancock v. Davis" on Justia Law

A certified class of minor children in the Permanent Managing Conservatorship (PMC) of DFPS filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, seeking injunctive relief and alleging that Texas' maintenance of its foster care system exposes them to a serious risk of abuse, neglect, and harm to their physical and psychological well-being. The district court granted plaintiffs a permanent injunction requiring sweeping changes to the state's foster care system.The Fifth Circuit held that facts in the record adequately supported the finding that a policy or practice of maintaining overburdened caseworkers directly causes all PMC children to be exposed to a serious risk of physical and psychological harm; the district court correctly found that the State was deliberately indifferent to a substantial risk of serious harm to the Licensed Foster Care (LFC) subclass as a result of its insufficient monitoring and oversight, and that these deficiencies were a direct cause of the constitutional harm; the district court erred in concluding that inadequate placement array causes constitutionally cognizable harm to the LFC subclass and that the State was deliberately indifferent to a substantial risk of serious harm; and to the extent that the lack of awake-night supervision may have sustained a constitutional claim under the circumstances, the remaining policies and their effects did not cause foster group homes (FGH) children an amplified risk of harm sufficient to overcome the threshold hurdle.The court also held that Rule 23-specific arguments were waived. While the district court entered an expansive injunction mandating dozens of specific remedial measures and it was entitled to grant plaintiffs injunctive relief, the court held that the injunction was significantly overbroad. Accordingly, the court vacated the injunction and remanded with instructions to remove the remedial provisions related to placement array and FGHs, and to strike provisions that were not necessary to achieve constitutional compliance. View "M.D. v. Abbott" on Justia Law

After plaintiff was exonerated for a crime that he served seventeen years in prison for, he filed suit against various government and law enforcement personnel over his wrongful conviction and imprisonment. The Fifth Circuit held that false imprisonment was a "continuing tort" in Texas and defendant's claim was timely filed; defendant's due process claim against the county defendants was properly dismissed as time-barred; but absolute immunity barred defendant's due process claim against the prosecutor. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Moon v. City of El Paso" on Justia Law

A party is bound by the terms of a consent decree that it voluntarily entered. The Fifth Circuit mostly affirmed the district court's judgment finding that Delta had violated a consent decree requiring Delta to comply with a desegregation order that it had voluntarily entered into. In this case, the desegregation requirements arose out of and served to resolve a longstanding desegregation effort in Concordia Parish properly overseen by the district court; were within the scope of the case; and furthered the equal protection objectives of the original complaint. The court rejected Delta's alternative argument that the district court's order granting further relief exceeded its remedial authority. Finally, the court vacated a portion of the district court's order requiring Delta to obtain authorization before enrolling students from other parishes under separate desegregation orders. View "Smith v. School Board of Concordia Parish" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit vacated the district court's grant of habeas corpus ordering petitioner to be retried for killing the victim in a bar fight. The court held that the federal court failed to defer to the state court's reasonable application of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), and therefore erred in granting petitioner habeas corpus relief. The court held that, given counsel's all-or-nothing strategy, he reasonably declined a "double-edged" manslaughter instruction that could have lowered petitioner's chances of an acquittal; even assuming counsel should have sought a sudden passion instruction, it was unlikely that the instruction would have changed petitioner's sentence; and neither conclusion would have been an objectively unreasonable application of Strickland by the state habeas court. View "Mejia v. Davis" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a physician licensed in Texas who worked part time at the Red Bluff Clinic in California, filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging violation of his Fourth Amendment rights when defendants, employees of the Texas Medical Board, executed an administrative subpoena instanter. The Fourth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal and rendered judgment for defendants. The court held that plaintiff failed to establish a cognizable interest in the subpoenaed records and thus he could not assert a Fourth Amendment claim. View "Barry v. Freshour" on Justia Law