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

The Fifth Circuit vacated the magistrate judge's denial of a preliminary injunction after plaintiff filed suit alleging that prison officials exhibited deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Plaintiff, a diabetic, specifically alleged that prison officials cancelled his prescribed diet on multiple occasions, forcing him to consume high-sugar meals up to four times a day, contrary to the orders of his unit physician. Construing plaintiff's pro se pleadings liberally, the court held that plaintiff had alleged a pattern of knowing interferences with prescribed medical care for his diabetes, despite his multiple complaints and his official grievance, which were all essentially ignored. Such allegations were sufficient to state a claim for deliberate indifference and thus plaintiff had shown a sufficient likelihood of success on the merits of his preliminary injunction. Plaintiff also alleged a substantial threat of irreparable injury. Finally, the magistrate judge's conclusion that it was improbable that plaintiff could establish that the grant of an injunction would not disserve the public interest was without basis in the record. Accordingly, the court remanded for further proceedings. View "Jones v. TDCJ" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit vacated the magistrate judge's denial of a preliminary injunction after plaintiff filed suit alleging that prison officials exhibited deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Plaintiff, a diabetic, specifically alleged that prison officials cancelled his prescribed diet on multiple occasions, forcing him to consume high-sugar meals up to four times a day, contrary to the orders of his unit physician. Construing plaintiff's pro se pleadings liberally, the court held that plaintiff had alleged a pattern of knowing interferences with prescribed medical care for his diabetes, despite his multiple complaints and his official grievance, which were all essentially ignored. Such allegations were sufficient to state a claim for deliberate indifference and thus plaintiff had shown a sufficient likelihood of success on the merits of his preliminary injunction. Plaintiff also alleged a substantial threat of irreparable injury. Finally, the magistrate judge's conclusion that it was improbable that plaintiff could establish that the grant of an injunction would not disserve the public interest was without basis in the record. Accordingly, the court remanded for further proceedings. View "Jones v. TDCJ" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit denied the petition for panel rehearing and denied the petition for rehearing en banc. The court withdrew the previous opinion and issued the following opinion.After Jermaine Darden suffered a heart attack and died during his arrest, the administrator of Darden's estate filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against the arresting officers and the City. The district court granted summary judgment for the officers and the City, and dismissed all claims. The court held that a jury could conclude that no reasonable officer on the scene would have thought that Darden was resisting arrest; Officer Snow was not entitled to qualified immunity where there were genuine disputes of material fact as to whether Darden was actively resisting arrest and whether the force Officer Snow used was clearly excessive and clearly unreasonable; Officer Romero was not entitled to qualified immunity where a reasonable jury could conclude that he used excessive force; and plaintiff adequately alleged facts that made out violations of a clearly established constitutional right. Therefore, the court reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded. View "Darden v. City of Fort Worth, Texas" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit denied the petition for panel rehearing and denied the petition for rehearing en banc. The court withdrew the previous opinion and issued the following opinion.After Jermaine Darden suffered a heart attack and died during his arrest, the administrator of Darden's estate filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against the arresting officers and the City. The district court granted summary judgment for the officers and the City, and dismissed all claims. The court held that a jury could conclude that no reasonable officer on the scene would have thought that Darden was resisting arrest; Officer Snow was not entitled to qualified immunity where there were genuine disputes of material fact as to whether Darden was actively resisting arrest and whether the force Officer Snow used was clearly excessive and clearly unreasonable; Officer Romero was not entitled to qualified immunity where a reasonable jury could conclude that he used excessive force; and plaintiff adequately alleged facts that made out violations of a clearly established constitutional right. Therefore, the court reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded. View "Darden v. City of Fort Worth, Texas" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's decision to enjoin the enforcement of federal laws that generally prohibit the direct sale of a handgun by a federally licensed firearms dealer (FFL) to a person who is not a resident of the state in which the FFL is located. The court assumed without deciding, that the strict, rather than intermediate standard for scrutiny was applicable. The court held that the in-state sales requirement did not violate the Second Amendment because it was narrowly tailored to assure that an FFL who actually makes a sale of a handgun to someone other than another FFL can reasonably be expected to know and comply with the laws of the state in which the sale occurs. Furthermore, the in-state sales requirement was not unconstitutional as applied to plaintiffs where the rule advanced government interests in the aggregate. The court also held that the in-state sales requirement did not violate the equal protection guarantee in the Due Process clause of the Fifth Amendment. In this case, the in-state sales requirement did not favor or disfavor residents of any particular state. Instead, it imposed the same restrictions on sellers and purchasers of firearms in each state and the District of Columbia. View "Mance v. Sessions" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of a petition for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. 2254. The court held that petitioner's Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) motion was timely filed and tolled the deadline for filing a notice of appeal until the entry of the order disposing of the motion. The court also held that this case presented one of those "extreme situations" in which the court was justified in finding a violation of the Sixth Amendment based on implied juror bias during the punishment phase of his trial. Although petitioner's conviction for possession of methamphetamine must stand, his sentence of life imprisonment could not. Accordingly, the court remanded with instructions. View "Uranga v. Davis" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against the city and two officers, alleging the use of excessive force under 42 U.S.C. 1983, and negligence under the Texas Tort Claims Act (TTCA). The Fifth Circuit held that the district court erred in disregarding plaintiff's proposed amended complaint because it stated plausible claims against the officers. The proposed amended complaint alleged that Officer Vela approached to arrest plaintiff and that she did not physically assault either Vela or her father. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded to the district court to consider whether plaintiff's pleadings survived the officers' defense of qualified immunity. The court held that the claims against the city failed. Therefore, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. View "Pena v. Rio Grande City, Texas" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment against plaintiff in an action alleging that he was unlawfully terminated under the Consumer Financial Protection Act (CFPA), 12 U.S.C. 5567(a)(1). Plaintiff, a car salesman, alleged that Sonic would not extend credit to minorities. The court held that nothing in section 5519(a) precluded the Department of Labor, a separate federal entity, from enforcing the anti-retaliation provision against dealers even though the CFPB could not; the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), 15 U.S.C. 1691, as applied to automobile dealers, was not a statute subject to the jurisdiction of the Bureau, and thus, as a matter of law, Sonic could not have violated section 5567(a); and a reasonable belief that discrimination was occurring under the ECOA could not extend the jurisdictional scope of the CFPA to include actors to which the statute did not apply. View "Calderone v. Sonic Houston JLR" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of summary judgment to the administrators of a university on their immunity defenses. Plaintiff filed suit alleging that he was deprived of his property interest in his job without due process and tortious interference with his employment contract. The court held that the district court erred in denying the administrators qualified immunity against the section 1983 claim because plaintiff did not have a clearly established property right. Furthermore, state law compelled a similar result on the tortious interference claim. Accordingly, the district court should have granted immunity to the administrators. View "Wilkerson v. University of North Texas" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for the State in this capital murder case. The court held that petitioner failed to present clear and convincing evidence sufficient to overcome the state trial court's determination that he was competent to waive counsel and plead guilty. The court rejected petitioner's claims of ineffective assistance of appointed trial counsel and claims that he did not receive a fair trial and juror bias. Finally, the court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying his request for an evidentiary hearing. View "Austin v. Davis" on Justia Law