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

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

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's partial summary judgment in favor of plaintiff in an action challenging Louisiana Revised Statutes 14:122 as unconstitutionally overbroad in violation of the First Amendment. Louisiana Revised Statutes 14:122 criminalizes "the use of violence, force, or threats" on any public officer or employee with the intent to influence the officer's conduct in relation to his position.After determining that plaintiff had Article III standing to bring his claims, the court held that section 14:122 was unconstitutionally overbroad because the meaning of "threat" was broad enough to sweep in threats to take lawful, peaceful actions, such as threats to sue a police officer or challenge an incumbent officeholder. View "Seals v. McBee" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's grant of habeas relief to petitioner. The court held that the Louisiana Supreme Court's resolution of petitioner's Fifth Amendment double jeopardy claim on direct appeal was contrary to, or reflected an unreasonable application of, clearly established law. In this case, the state court did not contravene clearly established federal law under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act's relitigation bar by not applying Price v. Georgia. Furthermore, the state court did not misapply the framework established by Price and Morris v. Mathews. The court also held that the Louisiana Supreme Court did not unreasonably apply Strickland v. Washington in holding that petitioner was not prejudiced by his counsel's failure to quash his jeopardy-barred charge. The court denied as moot respondant’s Unopposed Second Motion to Expedite Appeal. View "Thomas v. Vannoy" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit vacated the district court's grant of summary judgment in an action brought by a landowner against the City over the City's use of his residential property to drain and filter storm-sewer runoff. The court held that there were disputed factual issues as to whether the City had an easement over the landowner's land and he was entitled to a declaratory judgment and monetary damages. The court also held that, even if the City has an easement, there was a disputed factual issue regarding whether the City must accommodate the landowner's use of his property by installing subsurface drain pipes as it has done elsewhere in the City. The court held that the landowner's Fifth Amendment takings claim was time-barred and affirmed the district court's judgment as to this claim. View "Redburn v. City of Victoria" on Justia Law