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

Petitioner was convicted of murder and sentenced to death. The Fifth Circuit granted a certificate of appealability on two issues: (1) a Mills claim that the omission of a jury instruction—required under Texas law—that jurors need not agree on what particular evidence they found mitigating created a substantial risk that the jurors may have mistakenly believed mitigating evidence needed to be accepted unanimously and (2) that petitioner's trial counsel's failure to object to the missing instruction constituted ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland v. Washington. In regard to the Mills claim, the court held that, given the record, there did not exist a reasonable likelihood or substantial probability that reasonable jurors may have thought they were precluded from considering any mitigating evidence unless all 12 jurors agreed on the existence of a particular such circumstances. Therefore, the state courts did not unreasonably apply Mills. Assuming arguendo that failing to object to the absent jury instruction was deficient performance, defendant failed to show prejudice. Accordingly, the Texas state courts' application of Strickland to defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claims was not unreasonable. The court affirmed the denial of habeas relief. View "Young v. Davis" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit challenging a provision in the Texas Administrative Code regulating advertising in the field of dentistry, Tex. Admin. Code 108.54. Section 108.54 prohibits dentists from advertising as specialists in areas that the ADA does not recognize as specialties. The district court enjoined defendants from enforcing section 108.54 and granted summary judgment for defendants on plaintiffs' remaining Fourteenth Amendment claims. The Fifth Circuit held that plaintiffs' proposed speech was not inherently misleading; even if it were, the Board may regulate potentially misleading speech if the regulation satisfied the remaining elements of the Central Hudson test; the Board had a substantial interest in ensuring the accuracy of commercial information in the marketplace, establishing uniform standards for certification, and protecting consumers from misleading professional advertisements; but the Board failed to meet its burden to show that section 108.54 advances the asserted interests in a direct and material way. Even if the Board demonstrated that section 108.54 directly advanced the interests asserted, it failed to demonstrate that it was not more extensive than was necessary to serve those interests. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "American Academy of Implant Dentistry v. Parker" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a wrongful termination suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 1988, alleging violations of procedural and substantive due process stemming from legislation that abolished the University of Texas-Pan American (UTPA) and the University of Texas at Brownsville (UTB). The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings with respect to plaintiff's section 1983 claims because plaintiff failed to demonstrate that he had a constitutionally protected interest in employment or tenure at UTRGV or the UT System at large. The court explained that plaintiff's protected property interests were limited to an interest in continuing appointment at the institution that granted him tenure, UTPA, an interest which terminated when the university was abolished. Furthermore, the court denied by implication plaintiff's motion for leave to amend pleadings, and denied plaintiff's motion to alter or amend the judgment. The court also declined to exercise jurisdiction over and dismissed plaintiff's declaratory judgment claim. View "Edionwe v. Bailey" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging claims arising out of injuries he sustained while he was detained at a facility operated by Nueces County and was under the care of the facility's medical professionals, Deborah Charette and Chelsea Johnson. The Fifth Circuit held that the district court did not err in concluding that plaintiff's claims against Charette and Johnson were barred by the statute of limitations. However, the district court erred in dismissing plaintiff's claims against the County because the amended complaint pleaded facts sufficient to support a municipal liability claim that was plausible on its face. View "Balle v. Nueces County" on Justia Law

Plaintiff and his family challenged the City's ordinance restricting where certain individuals convicted of sex offenses may live within the city. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for the city, holding that even assuming the ordinance deprived plaintiff of a liberty interest, due process does not entitle him to a hearing to establish a fact that is not material under the statute. In this case, the fact that defendant seeks to prove his current dangerousness is of no consequence under the ordinance. The court also held that the ordinance did not violate the Equal Protection Clause because its challenged classification rationally furthers a legitimate state interest. View "Duarte v. City of Lewisville, Texas" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. 1983 pro se complaint as frivolous and for failure to state a claim. The Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding that plaintiff's claims for declaratory and injunctive relief under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), was moot after his transfer to a different detention center; plaintiff's First Amendment claim failed because, other than not being allowed to attend Jumu'ah prayer services, he has not identified any other restrictions on his ability to express or exercise his faith; plaintiff's claims regarding the denial of medical care, negligent or deliberately indifferent infliction of injury, interference with his mail/denial of access to the courts, denial of equal protection, and retaliation were either not briefed at all or not adequately briefed; and plaintiff filed a formal motion requesting leave to file his proposed third amended complaint, and his "proposed order" accompanying that complaint did not qualify as such a motion. The court denied plaintiff's motion for a proposed settlement, and noted that the dismissal of this complaint counts as a strike under 28 U.S.C. 1915(g). Because plaintiff has at least three other strikes, he is barred from proceeding in forma pauperis. View "Coleman v. Lincoln Parish Detention Center" on Justia Law

Two former sheriff's deputies were terminated for violating the Sheriff's Code of Conduct because they moved in with each other's wife and family before getting divorced from their current wives. The district court held that the Code policies invoked against the deputies were supported by the rational grounds of preserving a cohesive police force and upholding the public trust and reputation of the Sheriff's Department, and that the Code was not unconstitutionally vague as written or enforced. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment in favor of defendants, holding that the district court made no reversible error of fact or law. The court explained that Obergefell v. Hodges does not alter applicable law, and did not create "rights" based on relationships that mock marriage. View "Coker, v. Whittington" on Justia Law

Pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 28 U.S.C .1915(g), a third strike bars a prisoner from proceeding in forma pauperis unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. A strike issues when a prisoner's action is dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim. However, a strike does not issue when only some claims are dismissed on section 1915(g) grounds. In this case, plaintiff's claims were dismissed for failure to state a claim while others were adequately pleaded but failed at summary judgment. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff's claim that defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs, but vacated the strike because the strike did not issue when only some of plaintiff's claims were dismissed on section 1915(g) grounds. View "Brown v. Megg" on Justia Law

Petitioner challenged the district court's transfer of his habeas petition to the Fifth Circuit based on the ground that the petition was second or successive. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the transfer order, holding that there was no intervening judgment here because the 2014 Texas Court of Criminal Appeal decision was not the one authorizing petitioner's confinement. In the alternative, the Fifth Circuit found that petitioner had made a requisite prima facie showing to file a successive habeas petition and the court granted his motion for authorization to file a successive petition. In this case, petitioner's Atkins claim relied on a previously unavailable new rule of constitutional law and his Atkins claim had merit. View "In Re: Eric Cathey" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a former student of the school district, filed suit alleging violations of 42 U.S.C. 1983; Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. 1681(a); Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. 794; and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq. Plaintiff alleged that he was sexually assaulted when he was in the second or third grade by a male student in the bathroom. The district court granted the school district's motion to dismiss. The Fifth Circuit affirmed, concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in considering the school district's second Rule 12(b)(6) motion; the district court did not abuse its discretion by not allowing further discovery or granting a continuance; the section 1983 claims were properly dismissed because plaintiff failed to prove a constitutional violation where the claims were not based on the private conduct of his assailant but on the school district's shortcomings in monitoring the students, training the teachers, and establishing a reporting system for sexual assault; the district court did not err in dismissing the Title IX claim because plaintiff failed to show the school district's actual knowledge required to establish liability under Title IX; and the district court also did not err in dismissing the Section 504 and ADA claims. View "Doe v. Columbia-Brazoria Independent School District" on Justia Law