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

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

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal, for want of Article III standing, plaintiff's claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Plaintiff, a paraplegic, alleged that defendant's parking lot did not have the number of spaces required by the ADA and lacked access ramps. In this case, defendant filed nearly 400 lawsuits in just over 300 days and could not remember a single establishment that he sued and then returned to. Therefore, plaintiff has failed to show any likelihood of future injury necessary to obtain equitable relief; the district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing a contempt order fining counsel $2,500; and the district court did not wrongfully award attorney's fees where the district court only awarded costs. View "Deutsch v. Annis Enterprises, Inc." on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal, for want of Article III standing, plaintiff's claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Plaintiff, a paraplegic, alleged that defendant's parking lot did not have the number of spaces required by the ADA and lacked access ramps. In this case, defendant filed nearly 400 lawsuits in just over 300 days and could not remember a single establishment that he sued and then returned to. Therefore, plaintiff has failed to show any likelihood of future injury necessary to obtain equitable relief; the district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing a contempt order fining counsel $2,500; and the district court did not wrongfully award attorney's fees where the district court only awarded costs. View "Deutsch v. Annis Enterprises, Inc." on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of unitary status in the area of faculty and staff employment per a consent decree to monitor the school district's efforts to desegregate its school system. The court held that the school district complied with the consent decree in good faith and intervenors failed to show otherwise. The court also agreed with the district court that the school district has eliminated the vestiges of de jure discrimination in employment. View "United States v. Mississippi" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against defendant and others, after plaintiff was charged and then acquitted of murder. In this case, the Fifth Circuit vacated the district court's grant of defendant's motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity and remanded for trial essentially on the factual issue of whether defendant acted recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally by omitting and misrepresenting material facts in his affidavit when seeking an arrest warrant for plaintiff. The court noted that, considering that fact that this litigation continued for over seven years, the case should go to trial without delay. View "Winfrey, Jr. v. Rogers" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment against plaintiff on her claims of retaliation under Louisiana state law and the First Amendment, deprivation of her liberty and reputational interests under the Fourteenth Amendment, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The court held that plaintiff did not show that she was subjected to an adverse employment action and her claim under state law failed; plaintiff's claims of municipal liability failed because plaintiff did not identify any official school board policy or custom in accordance with which the allegedly unconstitutional conduct occurred; plaintiff's claims against school officials in their individual capacities failed based on their claims of qualified immunity; plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment liberty and reputational interests claims failed because the school district never discharged plaintiff; and plaintiff's claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress failed because plaintiff did not demonstrate that any of the defendants' conduct was extreme and outrageous or more than a reasonable person could be expected to endure. View "Rayborn v. Bossier Parish School Board" on Justia Law