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

Plaintiff filed suit against defendants under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging civil rights violations because the police issued an “Official Notification of Trespass Warning” prohibiting her from entering city-owned property, which was later lifted. The district court concluded that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity as to the majority of plaintiff's claims, but denied qualified immunity on the procedural due process and direct municipal liability claims. Defendants appealed the denial of qualified immunity.The court reversed and remanded, concluding that the alleged constitutional right was not clearly established at the time of the incident, so the officers are entitled to qualified immunity. View "Vincent v. City of Sulphur" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against the school district and its employees, alleging claims related to the sexual molestation of A.W. by her teacher. The district court dismissed the claims under Rule 12(b)(6) as time-barred. At issue is the Texas statute of limitations that applies to Title IX of the Education Act of 1972, 20 U.S.C. 1681 et seq., and 42 U.S.C. 1983 claims involving sexual abuse. The court concluded that the district court did not err in finding that plaintiffs’ Title IX and section 1983 claims are time-barred because plaintiffs' claims accrued more than two years prior to their filing suit and the equitable tolling principles they have identified do not apply. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment and did not reach the remaining issues raised on appeal. View "King-White v. Humble Indep. Sch. Dist." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000d, and 42 U.S.C. 1983 against the district and two district employee, alleging discrimination based on race and a hostile educational work environment. The court applied the deliberate indifference standard for a Title VI student-on-student harassment claim and concluded that plaintiffs have raised a genuine dispute that a racially hostile environment existed. However, the court concluded that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment on the Title VI claim where plaintiffs have failed to raise a genuine dispute over whether the school district was deliberately indifferent to the harassment. Further, the court concluded that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment as to the claim against the school district and the employees under section 1983. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Fennell v. Marion I.S.D." on Justia Law

NiGen, manufacturer and distributor of dietary supplements, Isodrene and The HCG Solution, appealed the dismissal of its constitutional and state law claims against the Attorney General based on state sovereign immunity. NiGen had filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 after the AG sent letters to NiGen and its retailers, intimating that formal enforcement was on the horizon for both NiGen and its retailers. The retailers pulled the products from their shelves in Texas and other states, allegedly costing NiGen millions of dollars in lost revenue. The court concluded that it is at least partially correct that NiGen’s claims are not barred from federal jurisdiction on the basis of Ex parte Young; federal jurisdiction plainly exists over most of the constitutional claims pled; and NiGen has standing to sue. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, and vacated, remanding in part for further proceedings. View "NiGen Biotech, L.L.C. v. Paxton" on Justia Law

After Ryan Cole, a seventeen-year-old, was severely injured in an armed encounter with police, he and his parents filed suit against the officers for, among other things, use of excessive force in violation of Ryan's Fourth Amendment rights. The district court denied Defendant Carson’s motion to dismiss and Defendants Hunter and Cassidy’s motion for summary judgment, rejecting the officers’ immunity defense at the motion stage of the case. Under plaintiffs’ version of the facts, the court concluded that it was objectively unreasonable under clearly established law to shoot Ryan. Consequently, the fact disputes identified by the district court - including the central issue of whether Ryan pointed his gun at an officer - are material, and the court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. However, the court affirmed the district court’s refusal to dismiss the due process claim relating to fabrication of evidence. Finally, the court concluded that the district court erred in allowing all other claims to proceed. View "Cole v. Hunter" on Justia Law

Herman Barnes, a paranoid schizophrenic, died after a confrontation in his home with Harris County sheriffs deputies. Plaintiffs, his surviving family members, filed suit alleging that the deputies’ seizure of Barnes was unlawful, that the deputies’ warrantless entry into his home was unreasonable, and that the deputies’ use of force was excessive and deprived Barnes of his civil rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983. After the jury deadlocked, the district court denied the deputies’ motion for a directed verdict and declared a mistrial. The deputies seek interlocutory appeal from the district court’s denial of their motion for a directed verdict. After determining that it has interlocutory appellate jurisdiction, the court concluded that the deputies are entitled to qualified immunity on the unlawful-search-and-seizure claims and on most of the excessive-force claims, but not as to the excessive-force claims for the deputies’ use of force after Barnes was subdued and ceased resisting. The deputies' qualified-immunity appeals, arising from their use of force after Barnes had been restrained and handcuffed, turned on questions of fact the district court found disputed. Accordingly, the court reversed in part, dismissed in part, and remanded. View "Carroll v. Harris County" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a police officer, filed suit against the City, alleging unlawful retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000 et seq. After a jury found the City liable and awarded plaintiff damages, both parties appealed. The court affirmed the district court’s judgment on liability because plaintiff produced evidence sufficient to find - under University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar’s but-for standard of causation - that his Crime Reduction Unit (CRU) supervisors, motivated by retaliatory intent, intended to cause and did cause his suspension; affirmed the district court’s order upholding the jury’s past compensatory damages award because plaintiff produced specific evidence that he suffered mental anguish and reputational harm until his suspension was overturned; reversed and remanded the district court’s order vacating the jury’s future compensatory damages award because plaintiff produced sufficient evidence to support his claim of future reputational harm, and instructed the district court on remand to consider remittitur; and affirmed the district court’s order denying the City’s motion for a mistrial because the district court found after a thorough investigation that the discovery of the prior jury’s notes would not affect the jury’s deliberations or the jury’s verdict. View "Zamora v. City of Houston" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, police officers of the City, filed suit challenging the Department's adoption of a new sick leave policy, SPD 301.06, on numerous statutory and constitutional grounds. The district court dismissed the suit under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The court concluded that plaintiffs’ facial challenge to the “chronic condition” provision states a prima facie claim under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. 794, because that provision may very well be intended to reveal or necessitate revealing a disability. Accordingly, the court vacated the district court's order to the extent that it dismissed plaintiffs' Rehabilitation Act challenge to the portion of the SPD-3 Form that requests information regarding whether the officer has a “chronic condition.” The court remanded to the district court to allow plaintiffs to pursue, at most, injunctive and declaratory relief on that claim. The court affirmed the district court's orders in all other respects. View "Taylor v. City of Shreveport" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against Freescale and Manpower under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12112, alleging discriminatory termination and a claim under the Texas Labor Code alleging retaliatory termination based on her filing of a workers’ compensation claim. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to raise an inference of pretext, and therefore, the court reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment with respect to plaintiff's ADA claim. However, the court concluded that plaintiff's retaliation claim failed because Freescale did not provide plaintiff's workers' compensation coverage and because there is no evidence that Manpower acted with a retaliatory motive. View "Burton v. Freescale Semiconductor" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit challenging the constitutionality and legality of Senate Bill 14 in 2011, which requires individuals to present one of several forms of photo identification in order to vote. The district court held that SB 14 was enacted with a racially discriminatory purpose, has a racially discriminatory effect, is a poll tax, and unconstitutionally burdens the right to vote. The court vacated the district court’s judgment that SB 14 was passed with a racially discriminatory purpose and remanded for further consideration of plaintiffs’ discriminatory purpose claims, using the proper legal standards and evidence; vacated the district court’s holding that SB 14 is a poll tax under the Fourteenth and Twenty-Fourth Amendments and rendered judgment for the State on this issue; the court need not and did not address whether SB 14 unconstitutionally burdens the right to vote under the First and Fourteenth Amendments; vacated the district court’s judgment on that issue and dismissed those claims; and affirmed the district court’s finding that SB 14 violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, 52 U.S.C. 10301(a), through its discriminatory effects and remanded for consideration of the appropriate remedy. Finally, the court remanded with further instructions. View "Veasey v. Abbott" on Justia Law