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

Petitioner, convicted of capital murder of a police officer and sentenced to death, argued that he was entitled to federal habeas relief on his claim that the press coverage of the crime and the presence of uniformed police officers in the gallery during his trial created an inherently prejudicial atmosphere that violated his right to a fair trial. On the merits, the Fifth Circuit held that 28 U.S.C. 2254(e)(2) barred consideration of the media reports included in petitioner's federal petition, and the district court properly declined to consider them. The court also held that petitioner's fair trial claim did not warrant habeas relief. The court explained that other courts have declined to find the mere presence of officers in a courtroom sufficient to support inherent prejudice, and the record before the court did not suggest the police presence intimidated the jury or disrupted the factfinding process in any way. Furthermore, even assuming that section 2254(e)(2) did not bar this court's consideration of the media-related evidence presented for the first time in petitioner's federal habeas petition, his fair trial claim still failed. Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying discovery, nor did it err in resting its conclusion on the evidence presented in the federal habeas petition. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's denial of relief on the merits. View "Jones v. Davis" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of capital murder of a police officer and sentenced to death, argued that he was entitled to federal habeas relief on his claim that the press coverage of the crime and the presence of uniformed police officers in the gallery during his trial created an inherently prejudicial atmosphere that violated his right to a fair trial. On the merits, the Fifth Circuit held that 28 U.S.C. 2254(e)(2) barred consideration of the media reports included in petitioner's federal petition, and the district court properly declined to consider them. The court also held that petitioner's fair trial claim did not warrant habeas relief. The court explained that other courts have declined to find the mere presence of officers in a courtroom sufficient to support inherent prejudice, and the record before the court did not suggest the police presence intimidated the jury or disrupted the factfinding process in any way. Furthermore, even assuming that section 2254(e)(2) did not bar this court's consideration of the media-related evidence presented for the first time in petitioner's federal habeas petition, his fair trial claim still failed. Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying discovery, nor did it err in resting its conclusion on the evidence presented in the federal habeas petition. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's denial of relief on the merits. View "Jones v. Davis" on Justia Law

After agreeing to hear this case en banc, the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's grant of a petition for habeas relief and order of a new trial. The district court found that the Mississippi Supreme Court erred when it concluded that the prosecution did not discriminate against black prospective jurors at petitioner's jury selection. The court held, however, that the prosecution in petitioner's case did what it was supposed to do; when it struck individual black prospective jurors, it gave specific race-neutral reasons for the strikes; and the state court found on multiple occasions that the prosecution did not invidiously discriminate against black prospective jurors. The court held that neither statutory ground for granting federal habeas relief applied to petitioner's case. View "Chamberlin v. Fisher" on Justia Law

Following remand from the United States Supreme Court, the Fifth Circuit held that this case was not a garden variety excessive force case against a federal law enforcement officer. Plaintiffs alleged that a law enforcement agent used deadly force without justification against a fifteen year old boy, violating the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, when they fatally shot him across the United States-Mexico border. At issue was whether federal courts have the authority to craft an implied damages action for alleged constitutional violations in this case under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S. Ct. 1999 (1971). The court noted that no federal statute authorizes a damages action by a foreign citizen injured on foreign soil by a federal law enforcement officer under these circumstances. The court held that the transnational aspect of the facts presented a "new context" under Bivens, and numerous "special factors" counseled against federal courts' interference with the Executive and Legislative branches of the federal government. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the case. View "Hernandez v. Mesa, Jr." on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit upheld Senate Bill 4 (SB4), a Texas law that forbids "sanctuary city" policies throughout the state, and held that SB4's provisions, with one exception, did not violate the Constitution. The court held that none of SB4's provisions conflict with federal law where the assistance-cooperation, the status-inquiry, and the information-sharing provisions were not conflict preempted. The court affirmed the district court's injunction against enforcement of Section 752.053(a)(1) only as it prohibits elected officials from "endors[ing] a policy under which the entity or department prohibits or materially limits the enforcement of immigration laws." The court held that plaintiffs failed to establish that every seizure authorized by the ICE-detainer mandate violated the Fourth Amendment; the "materially limits" phrase had a clear core and was not void for vagueness; and plaintiffs' "commandeering" argument failed. Accordingly, the court vacated in large part the district court's preliminary injunction and remanded with instructions to dismiss the vacated provisions. View "City of El Cenizo v. Texas" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against officials and medical personnel at a federal correctional institution, alleging that defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. The Fifth Circuit vacated the claim of deliberate indifference to plaintiff's serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment where plaintiff's allegations of severe physical pain and denial of recommended dental treatment were sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief; vacated the district court's awarding of plaintiff a strike under 28 U.S.C. 1915(g); and affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff's claim that defendants violated the Due Process Clause where the Eighth Amendment was relevant to claims of the denial of medical care. Finally, the court denied plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel. View "Carlucci v. Chapa" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit granted the petition for panel rehearing en banc and withdrew its prior opinion, substituting the following opinion.Plaintiffs filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, claiming that officers violated Jeremy W. Vann's Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizure, excessive force, and deadly force, and that the City had failed properly to train its officers and had permitted an official practice or custom that violated the constitutional rights of the public at large. The court held that Officer Jones' use of force did not violate clearly established law, and that even if Officer Logan used excessive force, there was no existing law at the time to put Logan on notice that his actions were unconstitutional. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendants. View "Vann v. City of Southaven" on Justia Law

The Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) petitioned for an emergency stay of the district court's order denying removal under 28 U.S.C. 1442, in an action where an unaccompanied alien minor requested Texas's judicial bypass regime for the purpose of an abortion. The Fifth Circuit vacated the district court's denial of removal and remanded to the district court so that it may conduct a hearing to resolve the question of whether Jane Doe presently wished to pursue an abortion. On remand, the district court was instructed to appoint a guardian ad litem. View "Doe v. Office of Refugee Resettlement" on Justia Law

The Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) petitioned for an emergency stay of the district court's order denying removal under 28 U.S.C. 1442, in an action where an unaccompanied alien minor requested Texas's judicial bypass regime for the purpose of an abortion. The Fifth Circuit vacated the district court's denial of removal and remanded to the district court so that it may conduct a hearing to resolve the question of whether Jane Doe presently wished to pursue an abortion. On remand, the district court was instructed to appoint a guardian ad litem. View "Doe v. Office of Refugee Resettlement" on Justia Law

Plaintiff and others filed a class action against the County under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that the County's system of setting bail for indigent misdemeanor arrestees violated Texas statutory and constitutional law, as well as the equal protection and due process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. The district court denied the County's summary judgment motion and granted plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction. The Fifth Circuit affirmed most of the district court's rulings, including its conclusion that plaintiff established a likelihood of success on the merits of its claims that the County's policies violated procedural due process and equal protection. However, the court held that the district court's definition of plaintiff's liberty interest under due process was too broad, and the procedures it required to protect that interest were too onerous; the district court erred by concluding that the County Sheriff could be sued under section 1983; and the district court's injunction was overbroad. Therefore, the court dismissed the Sheriff from the suit, vacated the injunction, and ordered the district court to modify its terms. View "ODonnell v. Harris County, Texas" on Justia Law