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

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 The magistrate judge then sua sponte deemed plaintiff's motion withdrawn, and plaintiff subsequently appealed the district court's dismissal of the suit.The Fifth Circuit held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the case and thus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

Plaintiff, who suffers from schizophrenia and was committed to ELMHS, filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that he received inadequate medical care and that defendants failed to protect him from harm. While at ELMHS, plaintiff sustained numerous injuries as a result of physical altercations with other patients and with guards.The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment holding that the Tulane-employed defendants may raise the defense of qualified immunity. However, the court reversed the denial of summary judgment, holding that plaintiff failed to establish that defendants violated his clearly established rights. In this case, plaintiff failed to cite any case clearly establishing that the particular conduct at issue violated the professional judgment standard. View "Perniciaro v. Lea" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit granted a motion for stay pending appeal brought by fourteen judges in a class action against Harris County and its officials under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that the County's system of setting bail for indigent misdemeanor arrestees violates Texas statutory and constitutional law and the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court entered a stay of Sections 7, 8, 9, and 16 pending plenary resolution of this appeal by a merits panel. In this case, the expansive injunction entered on remand repeated the mistake of the original injunction because it amounted to the outright elimination of secured bail for indigent misdemeanor arrestees. View "O'Donnell v. Harris County" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against defendants, under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and the Americans with Disabilities Act, following his involuntary civil commitment. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's ADA claims as barred by state sovereign immunity. The court held that the district court erred by dismissing plaintiff's claim that defendants' use of restraints amounted to a due process violation, because the claim was not barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the remaining section 1983 claims by the favorable termination rule established in Heck. The court vacated and remanded plaintiff's due process claim of unlawful bodily restraint against Defendants McMichael, Chastain, and Savoie. Finally, the court vacated the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's pendant state law claim on this issue to permit the district court to choose whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. View "Smith v. Hood" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of an action, based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction, brought by children to halt the deportation of their father. The children argued that their father's deportation was arbitrary and violated their rights to familial association under the First and Fifth Amendments, and that his selective removal was because of his Hispanic origin and violated the equal-protection aspect of the Fifth Amendment.The court held that the children's familial-association claim raised a legal question squarely within 8 U.S.C. 1252(b)(9), which operated as an unmistakable zipper clause designed to consolidate and channel review of all legal and factual questions that arose from the removal of an alien through the preordained administrative process. Consequently, because the familial-association question reached the courts outside the prescribed administrative process, this court had no jurisdiction to consider it. The court also held that the children's selective-enforcement claim concerned how the Government chose to enforce already-issued removal orders. Therefore, these claims arose from a decision to execute removal orders and 8 U.S.C. 1252(g) generally barred judicial review of such claims. View "Vega Duron v. Johnson" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of petitioner's request for $500 in funding under 18 U.S.C. 3599 for a preliminary review of DNA evidence. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying funding where neither in the district court nor in his briefing on appeal did petitioner explain how further review and DNA testing could conceivably support claims for relief or a case for clemency. View "Crutsinger v. Davis" on Justia Law