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

After officials of the TDCJ banned incarcerated adherents of the Nation of Gods and Earth from congregating together as their religion requires, plaintiff filed suit under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). The Fifth Circuit vacated the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendants, holding that the state failed to make any argument that its ban on Nation assembly did not substantially burden plaintiff's exercise of his sincere religious beliefs. The court also held that there were genuine disputes of material fact as to whether the state's ban advanced a compelling interest through the least restrictive means. The court affirmed the district court's judgment on the issue of exhaustion of plaintiff's other claims. View "Tucker v. Collier" on Justia Law

Louisiana's Unsafe Abortion Protection Act passed constitutional muster even under the stringent requirements of Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, 136 S. Ct. 2292 (2016) (WWH). The Act requires abortion providers to have admitting privileges at a hospital located within thirty miles of the clinic where they perform abortions.The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's judgment invalidating the Act as facially unconstitutional after this case was remanded to the district court for reconsideration in light of WWH. The court held that the records from Texas in WWH and Louisiana in this case diverged in all relevant respects. The court found that the Act resulted in a potential increase of 54 minutes at one of the state's clinics for at most 30% of women, and this was not a substantial burden at all, much less a substantial burden on a large fraction of women as was required to sustain a facial challenge. View "June Medical Services, LLC v. Gee" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's Fourth Amendment, 42 U.S.C. 1983 excessive force, and state law claims against the city and a police officer after the officer shot and killed Antwun Shumpert. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the City on plaintiff's Fourth Amendment and section 1983 claims where plaintiff failed to satisfy the requirements for municipal liability under Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 692 (1978). Because plaintiff failed to provide evidence of an official policy or custom of which a policy maker could be charged with actual or constructive knowledge that caused the constitutional violations, the district court properly granted summary judgment on the Fourth Amendment claims.The court also held that the district court properly determined that the officer was entitled to qualified immunity on the K9 force claim where plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the officer's use of K9 force was objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law. Furthermore, the officer was entitled to qualified immunity on the deadly force claim where his use of deadly force did not violate clearly established law. Finally, the state law claims were properly dismissed against the officer, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to sanction defendants. View "Shumpert v. City of Tupelo" on Justia Law

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 Fifth Circuit disagreed with the district court’s determination that the statute failed to comply with time, place, and manner standards on expressive conduct under United States v. O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367, 376 (1968), and that the statute was overbroad. However, the court held that the statute was unconstitutionally vague, and the standards for an injunction have been met. In this case, there was a substantial likelihood that plaintiffs would prevail on the merits of their vagueness claim where plaintiffs have shown that the Act had the capacity to chill constitutionally protected conduct, especially conduct protected by the First Amendment. The court held that the Act's vagueness and its resultant capacity to chill protected conduct supported a finding that the remaining injunctive relief requirements were satisfied. View "Doe v. Marine-Lombard" on Justia Law

This case was reheard en banc after plaintiff obtained a $2.3 million judgment that was reversed and his claims were dismissed. The court held that plaintiff's Brady v. Maryland claim should have been dismissed as a matter of law on summary judgment because the city should not have been subjected to municipal liability for plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. 1983 claim. The court also declined the invitation to disturb its precedent concerning a defendant's constitutional right to Brady material prior to entering a guilty plea. View "Alvarez v. City of Brownsville" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to LRS in an action filed by plaintiff alleging that she was denied a promotion because of her race in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The court held that it was undisputed that plaintiff established a prima facie case of employment discrimination, but LRS asserted a justification that was not pretextual. In this case, there was no evidence in the record of any discrimination in the promotion decision. The court explained that any difference in qualifications between the two candidates did not create a genuine issue of fact that plaintiff was clearly better qualified for the district supervisor position. The choice to value the other candidate's credentials over plaintiff's strengths was within the realm of reasonable business judgments. View "Roberson-King v. Louisiana Workforce Commission" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded the district court's grant of summary judgment to Officers Nathaniel Anderson, Jose Luna, and Venessa Trevino on plaintiff's false-arrest claims and to Luna on the excessive-force claim. The court held that genuine fact issues exist as to the reasonableness of an officer concluding that they had authority to enter the home based on consent. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to Trevino on the excessive-force claim, to Luna on the retaliation claim, and to Anderson, Luna, and Trevino on plaintiff's denial-of-medical-treatment claims. The court also affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's claims against Officers Chris Melton and Thomas Roberson, and failure-to-train claim against the City of Southlake. Finally, the court dismissed plaintiff's appeal of the district court's sealing order based on lack of jurisdiction. View "Westfall v. Luna" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit vacated a certificate of appealability (COA) on two issues and dismissed the appeal. The court held that it had no jurisdiction to issue a COA on an issue in which the district court did not deny a COA. In this case, petitioner did not present to the district court, in any manner identifiable by that court, a claim that he was constructively denied counsel. Therefore, the district court did not consider the Cronic issues and thus the COA was granted without jurisdiction. View "Black v. Davis" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings in a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action brought by plaintiff, alleging that police officers violated his Fourth Amendment rights by forcibly entering his house without a warrant, without his consent, and without reason to believe that any person inside was in imminent danger of harm; and by assaulting and arresting him with excessive force. Although the court found plausible plaintiff's allegations that the officers' warrantless entry into his house violated his Fourth Amendment right, the court could not conclude under the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, that this right was clearly established under the circumstances of this case at the time of the officers' entry. Therefore, the officers were entitled to qualified immunity. View "Linicomn v. City of Dallas" on Justia Law

Movant, a federal death row inmate, sought authorization for a successive motion to vacate his death sentence, claiming that he is intellectually disabled. The Fifth Circuit held that the larger statutory context favors applying 28 U.S.C. 2244(b)(1)'s strict relitigation bar to federal prisoners. In this case, movant was barred from relitigating his Atkins claim and his 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion presented only a single claim that was already presented in his original motion. Therefore, the court denied his request for authorization. View "In Re: Alfred Bourgeois" on Justia Law