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

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's partial grant of summary judgment of defendants' motion to dismiss and later grant of summary judgment rejecting all remaining claims. In this case, plaintiff and one of his patients filed suit against Texas Medical Board members under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that the Board's execution of an administrative subpoena on plaintiff's medical office violated the Fourth Amendment.The court held that, although there was a violation of plaintiff's constitutional rights, the unlawfulness of defendants' conduct was not clearly established at the time of the search. The court held that the search in this case was not pretextual where the Board's purpose was demonstrated by the subsequent administrative action against plaintiff. Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in abstaining from deciding the declaratory judgment claims, and arguments that Director Robinson was liable in her supervisory capacity were rejected. View "Zadeh v. Robinson" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit dismissed defendant's challenges to the district court's rejection of her qualified immunity defense. In this case, plaintiff filed a 42 U.S.C. 1983 suit against defendant, the police chief, for wrongfully terminating him for exercising his First Amendment rights in connection with his efforts to organize a police association of members of the police department. The court held that plaintiff's association and speech rights to engage in the activities he alleged were clearly protected. Therefore, the district court properly rejected defendant's qualified immunity defense. View "Mote v. Walthall" on Justia Law

Providence filed suit against Grant Road after Grant Road denied water, drainage, and septic services to Providence's intended psychiatric facility. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment dismissing Providence's claims of discriminatory motives. The court held that Grant Road was a local entity and thus not entitled to sovereign immunity; all of the evidence of discrimination presented by Providence was based on speculation rather than actual proof of Grant Road's discriminatory motives and thus the district court did not commit reversible error when it dismissed Providence's intentional discrimination claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Fair Housing Acting (FHA), and the Texas Fair Housing Act (TFHA); and Providence's reasonable accommodation claims failed because providing water, drainage, and septic services had no relation to accommodating the expected disabilities of the patients planned to be treated at Providence and Providence's claims were unsupported. Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it declined to hold that Grant Road was entitled to attorneys' fees. View "Providence Behavioral Health v. Grant Road Public Utility District" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against the Museum, alleging discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act, and seeking equitable relief and damages. Plaintiff, a quadriplegic with cerebral palsy who uses a wheelchair, alleged that the Lower Pontalba Building was not accessible. The Museum subsequently purchased portable ramps, buzzers, and buzzer-related signage.The Fifth Circuit dismissed plaintiff's appeal of the district court's dismissal of his equitable claims as moot. The court held that plaintiff failed to prove a necessary element for monetary damages, and thus the court reversed and rendered judgment in favor of the Museum in regard to that claim. However, the court held that plaintiff was still a prevailing party and affirmed the district court's grant of attorneys' fees. View "Miraglia v. Board of Supervisors of the Louisiana State Museum," on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit granted petitioner a certificate of appealability (COA) to challenge the denial of two of his habeas claims. Petitioner's first claim alleged that his trial counsel was constitutionally deficient during the penalty phase of trial by failing to correct a potentially misleading impression created by one of his experts. Petitioner's second claim alleged that the State suppressed material impeachment evidence of a pretrial conversation between a State witness and the lead prosecutor in his case.The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying petitioner an evidentiary hearing and it properly denied petitioner's Strickland claim on the merits; the district court correctly held that petitioner's Brady claim was both procedurally defaulted and without merit; and the court rejected petitioner's claim of cumulative error. View "Murphy v. Davis" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a pro se 42 U.S.C. 1983 action against prison officials, alleging that he was denied access to rehabilitative programs and services, including sex offender treatment. The district court dismissed the suit and plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration. The magistrate judge then sua sponte deemed plaintiff's motion withdrawn, and plaintiff subsequently appealed the district court's dismissal of the suit.The Fifth Circuit held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the case and thus could not reach the merits. The court considered defendant's motion for reconsideration still pending before the district court because the magistrate judge's withdrawal of the motion was ultra vires and without legal consequence. Therefore, plaintiff's motion for reconsideration remained pending in the district court. The panel held the appeal in abbeyance and issued a limited remand to allow the district court to rule on plaintiff's motion. View "Lawson v. Stephens" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit denied a petition for rehearing and a petition for rehearing en banc. The court withdrew its prior opinion and substituted this opinion.The modifications to the original opinion were minor and did not affect the substance or outcome of the earlier opinion, except in Part III.A, which now holds that Johnson's omission of the fact that the blood and hair found at the crime scene did not match Richard Winfrey Jr. or Megan Winfrey was not a "material" omission, and which reflects that it is Junior's burden to overcome qualified immunity, not Johnson's burden to show that qualified immunity applies. View "Winfrey v. San Jacinto County" on Justia Law

Veritext filed suit challenging the Board's enforcement of La. Code Civ. Proc. Ann. art. 1434(A)(1), which provides that depositions shall be taken before an officer authorized to administer oaths, who is not an employee or attorney of any of the parties or otherwise interested in the outcome of the case. In 2012, the Board began enforcing Article 1434 more aggressively, declaring that the law prohibits all contracts between court reporters and party litigants, including volume-based discounts and concessions to frequent customers.The Fifth Circuit held that the district court was correct to dismiss all of the constitutional claims brought by Veritext as a matter of Supreme Court precedent. The court explained that Louisiana's interest in the integrity of its court reporting system was legally sufficient, and Veritext failed to clearly identify a burden on interstate commerce imposed by the Board's enforcement of Article 1434 that exceeds its local benefits. However, the court held that Veritext pled facts sufficient to support a finding that the Board's conduct did restrain trade and remanded so that Veritext could proceed on its Sherman Act claim. View "Veritext Corp. v. Bonin" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of summary judgment to a law enforcement officer based on qualified immunity in a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action alleging that he used excessive force when he tased plaintiff. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to show that the officer violated plaintiff's Fourth Amendment right to be free of excessive force. However, the officer's actions did not violate law that was clearly established at the time of the incident. In Caroll v. Ellington, and in this case, officers confronted a suspect whom they believed to be on drugs, attempted to verbally secure the suspect's compliance, and chose to deploy a taser despite their knowledge that the suspect was unarmed. The Carroll panel decided that no clearly established law made the officer's decision to resort to the taser unreasonable. View "Samples v. Vadzemnieks" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of claims brought by University of Texas professors challenging a Texas law permitting the concealed carry of handguns on campus and a corresponding University policy prohibiting professors from banning such weapons in their classrooms. The court held that plaintiffs lacked standing to bring a First Amendment claim and rejected their claim of "standing based on their self-imposed censoring of classroom discussion caused by their fear of the possibility of illegal activity by persons not joined in this lawsuit." The court held that none of the cited evidence alleged a certainty that a license-holder would illegally brandish a firearm in a classroom, and thus the alleged harm was not certainly impending.The court also held that plaintiffs' claim that the Campus Carry Law and University policy violated the Second Amendment because firearm usage in their presence was not sufficiently "well regulated" was foreclosed by precedent. Finally, the court rejected plaintiffs' claim that the law and policy violated their right to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment because the University lacks a rational basis for determining where students can or cannot concealed-carry handguns on campus. The court held that plaintiffs failed to address Texas's arguments concerning rational basis. View "Glass v. Paxton" on Justia Law