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

The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's grant of habeas relief based on his claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel at the penalty phase. The court held that counsel's performance in raising and developing petitioner's claim for ineffective assistance of trial counsel at the penalty phase was not deficient. Furthermore, petitioner failed to establish prejudice. View "Wessinger v. Vannoy" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment against plaintiff on his failure to accommodate and hostile work environment claims. Because plaintiff failed to brief his intentional infliction of emotional distress claim, the court confined its review to his Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq., claims. The court held that plaintiff's failure to accommodate claim was unexhausted and plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence showing that defendants knew of his disability. The court also held that plaintiff failed to demonstrate that either defendant failed to take prompt, remedial action addressing the alleged harassment. View "Patton v. Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc." on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of habeas relief. The court held that petitioner's Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial was not violated; his due process and Confrontation Clause rights were not violated when he could not cross-examine his brother on the brother's alleged violence; and petitioner's right to present a complete defense and present witnesses were not violated when his expert on confessions and interrogations was barred from testifying. View "Boyer v. Vannoy" on Justia Law

Petitioner was convicted of killing his wife's parents and sentenced to death. In this appeal, the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of appointed counsel and expert funding under 18 U.S.C. 3599, vacated its factual findings relating to petitioner's competency, and remanded for additional proceedings. The court held that petitioner was entitled to counsel to pursue his claim because Texas's application of Article 46.05 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure denied him due process. Furthermore, the court did not see justification for denying petitioner funding for experts and other investigative resources. Because the district court's conclusion was tainted by the inadequate due process protection provided to petitioner by the State, the court vacated the district court's findings of fact regarding his competency to be executed. View "Panetti v. Davis" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment for defendants in this civil rights case involving claims arising from the execution of a search warrant on plaintiff's house. The court held that the district court did not err in denying plaintiff's motion to remand; the state court did not err in dismissing the common law claims against the officers pursuant to section 101.106(e) of the Texas Tort Claims Act; the district court properly dismissed plaintiff's federal claims against the individual officers; because plaintiff's negligence claims arose from the same conduct as his intentional-tort claims, governmental immunity applied and the state-law claims were properly dismissed; plaintiff failed to allege a claim of municipal liability under 42 U.S.C. 1983 because he never alleged either an official policy or a widespread custom that caused a violation of his constitutional rights; plaintiff's requested period of discovery was impermissible; and the court rejected plaintiff's claim for punitive damages. Finally, the court denied as moot the individual defendants' motion to dismiss. View "Quinn v. Guerrero" on Justia Law

To reset the accrual date, a change to an execution protocol must be substantial, and any new accrual date is applicable only to the portion of the protocol that changed. The switch from manufactured to compounded pentobarbital was not a substantial change because the switch between two forms of the same drug does not significantly alter the method of execution. In this case, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiffs' complaint under 42 U.S.C. 1983, challenging their method of execution. The court held that the district court properly dismissed Counts One, Two, and part of Three as time-barred. Even if the claims were timely, plaintiffs failed to state a claim with regard to Count Three, which addresses the method-of-execution claims regarding the compounded pentobarbital; Counts One and Four, which deal with plaintiffs' alleged inability to access information about their method of execution; and Count Two, which alleges the right to counsel during the events leading up to and during the execution. The court also held that the district court did not apply a heightened pleading standard; the district court did not consider evidence outside the pleadings; and any discovery error was harmless because plaintiffs were not entitled to discovery without a properly pleaded complaint. View "Whitaker v. Collier" on Justia Law

After an officer of the county jail sexually assaulted plaintiff, she filed suit against the officers and others under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment and dismissal of plaintiff's claims, holding that the county sheriff and the jail administrator were not deliberately indifferent to known or obvious risks associated with hiring the officers. Therefore, the district court did not err in holding that they were entitled to qualified immunity on this claim. The court also held that the district court did not err in concluding that defendants were entitled to qualified immunity with respect to plaintiff's inadequate training and supervision claims. In this case, it was not clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct that the county sheriff and the jail administrator needed to make significant changes to their training, supervision, and policies in response to the incident of sexual abuse. View "Rivera v. Bonner" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit denied rehearing en banc, withdrew its prior opinion, and substituted this opinion. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment as a matter of law for defendants on plaintiff's claim that defendants violated her constitutional rights by requiring her to participate in a mock performance of the Mexican Pledge of Allegiance as an assignment for her Spanish class. The court held that, because plaintiff has graduated from high school, her only surviving claim was for nominal damages arising from the alleged violation of her rights; judgment as a matter of law was proper for the District on municipal liability claims for any constitutional violation that may have arisen from the assignment or subsequent actions, as well as claims against the District for retaliation and violation of equal protection; qualified immunity on compelled speech was properly granted for the Spanish teacher and the principal; and qualified immunity was properly granted to the teacher and principal on claims that they violated plaintiff's First Amendment rights by removing her from class. View "Brinsdon v. McAllen Independent School District" on Justia Law

The $25 fee assessed by the Authority is rationally related to the government's interest in recovering costs spent to collect unpaid tolls. Plaintiffs, drivers who were assessed fees after they repeatedly refused to pay tolls, contend that the $25 administrative fee violates their right to substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Fifth Circuit held that, in addition to recovering costs, the fee is a mechanism that strongly encourages drivers to get a TollTag. The court explained that the nature of the Authority's interest in incentivizing TollTag usage is to sustain the Authority's financial health. In this case, the Authority's experiment sought to decrease congestion and increase access to the roads, two interests that often compete but could both be furthered by removing toll booths. View "Reyes v. North Texas Tollway Authority" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of habeas relief on petitioner's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel (IATC). The court held that, assuming counsel's performance was deficient, petitioner failed to show that he was prejudiced by the mitigation investigation of his trial counsel and therefore his IATC claim failed. View "Trevino v. Davis" on Justia Law