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

Plaintiff filed a civil rights action alleging that school administrators discriminated against him because he is an African American male. In this case, on the first day of high school, the Dean of Students asked teachers to send students with dyed hair to his office. All the students sent to the Dean's office were African American. The Dean and the Principal did not let plaintiff attend class that day because of his "two toned" blonde hairstyle. Although many students of all races, male and female, wore dyed hair to school, plaintiff was the only one disciplined for violating the school's hair policy during the school year. The district court granted defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.The Fifth Circuit held that plaintiff's intentional discrimination claim was untimely, but his harassment claim was timely based on the continuing violation doctrine. The court reversed the dismissal of plaintiff's harassment claims under Title VI and Title IX against the Board, holding that plaintiff plausibly alleged that the Dean's harassment of plaintiff stemmed from a discriminatory view that African American males should not have two-toned blonde hair. Furthermore, the harassment may well have been so severe, pervasive, and offensive that it denied plaintiff an educational benefit, and it is plausible that the school board knew about the harassment, did little to ensure plaintiff was safe, and was therefore deliberately indifferent. However, the court held that plaintiff has not pleaded that the school board officials were deliberately indifferent to the Dean's retaliatory conduct. Therefore, the court affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff's retaliation claim. View "Sewell v. Monroe City School Board" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against the Texas Secretary of State Ruth Hughs under 42 U.S.C. 1983 for allegedly imposing a voter-registration requirement that violates federal law. After the district court denied the Secretary's motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and (b)(6), the Secretary noticed an interlocutory appeal, and plaintiffs moved for summary affirmance or dismissal of the Secretary's appeal as frivolous.The Fifth Circuit held that the Secretary's appeal is not frivolous because it presents an important question that has not been resolved by the court: whether and to what extent the exception in Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 157 (1908), to sovereign immunity permits plaintiffs to sue the Secretary in an as-applied challenge to a law enforced by local officials. Accordingly, the court denied the motion for summary affirmance and the motion to dismiss the appeal as frivolous. View "Texas Democratic Party v. Hughs" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit alleging claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983, seeking to recover damages suffered from a series of alleged wrongful prosecutions, convictions, and imprisonment. The Fifth Circuit dismissed the appeal and cross-appeal based on lack of jurisdiction, holding that the dismissal of plaintiff's claims does not prevent him from re-filing the same or similar claims at a later date and thus the district court's decision was not a final decision. In this case, plaintiff is awaiting vacatur of his conviction by the TCCA and he is free to bring his claims once the conditions of Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1986), were met. Thus, litigation on the merits is not over because plaintiff expects to satisfy the Heck conditions soon and may resubmit his claims thereafter. View "Cook v. City of Tyler" on Justia Law

Oliva attempted to enter a VA hospital. The entrance was protected by VA police and metal detectors. While Oliva stood in line for the metal detector, he spoke with an officer. The conversation escalated into a physical altercation. VA police wrestled Oliva to the ground in a chokehold and arrested him. Oliva exhausted his administrative remedies and then sued the federal officers for damages under “Bivens” and sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The security video is inconsistent with Oliva’s account of the facts in certain respects. With respect to the Fourth Amendment claim, the district court held that “this case does not present a new Bivens context” and allowed the claims to proceed.The Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded for dismissal of the claims against the officers. Bivens claims generally are limited to manacling the plaintiff in front of his family in his home and strip-searching him in violation of the Fourth Amendment; discrimination on the basis of sex by a congressman against a staff person in violation of the Fifth Amendment; and failure to provide medical attention to an asthmatic prisoner in federal custody in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Extending Bivens to new contexts is a “disfavored judicial activity.” This case arose from events at a hospital, not a private home, and involved a metal detector, not a warrantless search. The context is new and no special factors warrant extending Bivens. View "Oliva v. United States" on Justia Law

After the clinic that plaintiffs were employed at closed and they were terminated, plaintiffs filed suit alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). The jury found for defendants on all claims.The Fifth Circuit held that any error in limiting the testimony of the human resources representative was harmless; the district court applied the proper legal standard by admitting extrinsic evidence for the purpose of showing the human resources representative's bias, and the scope of the HR Director's testimony that the district court permitted was not an abuse of its broad discretion; and the district court did not abuse is discretion by failing to offer the jury a motivating-factor instruction on the Title VII discrimination and FMLA retaliation claims. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment. View "Adams v. Memorial Hermann" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's First Amendment claim alleging political retaliation. Plaintiff was the Crime Victims Unit (CVU) Coordinator for the 229th Judicial District Attorney's Office and defendant was her boss, the District Attorney.As a preliminary matter, the court rejected plaintiff's claim that the district court erred by disposing of the complaint at the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) stage. On the merits, the court held that plaintiff's employment was not shielded by the First Amendment and the district court correctly concluded that she was subject to the patronage dismissal exception to First Amendment retaliation claims. In this case, plaintiff's position as CVU Coordinator is a confidential or policymaking role, and one for which "party affiliation is an appropriate requirement for effective performance." The court also held that because plaintiff has not plausibly alleged a constitutional claim, her municipal liability claim was also properly dismissed. View "Garza v. Escobar" on Justia Law

After the City of Austin denied applications to digitize existing billboards, Reagan and Lamar filed suit alleging that the distinction in the City's Sign Code between on-premises and off-premises signs violates the First Amendment.The Fifth Circuit held that the City's Sign Code's on-premises/off-premises distinction is content based and the commercial speech exception does not apply. The court held that the Sign Code runs afoul of the First Amendment because the relevant provisions of the Sign Code are not narrowly tailored to serve the compelling government interest of protecting the aesthetic value of the City and public safety. In this case, the ordinance is underinclusive. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's decision to the contrary and remanded. View "Reagan National Advertising of Austin, Inc. v. City of Austin" on Justia Law

After TABC investigated Spec's and brought a largely unsuccessful administrative action against it, Spec's filed suit against TABC. The district court dismissed the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), reasoning that defendants were entitled to various forms of immunity.The Fifth Circuit held that the district court correctly determined that defendants are entitled to absolute immunity from Spec's' 42 U.S.C. 1983 claims regarding administrative holds, protests of applications, and denials of renewals. However, the district court erred by concluding that defendants are absolutely immune from Spec's' section 1983 individual-capacity claim regarding the concealment of evidence. The court also held that the district court correctly determined that sovereign immunity bars Spec's' official-capacity claims for damages and for injunctive and declaratory relief. The district court also correctly held that defendants are entitled to state-action immunity from Spec's' antitrust claims, and that Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code 102.07(a)(7) is not a per se violation of the Sherman Act. Finally, the court held that the district court's decision to decline supplemental jurisdiction over Spec's' state-law malicious prosecution claim must be vacated because the grounds for that decision are no longer applicable. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Spec's Family Partners, Ltd. v. Executive Director of the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's complaint alleging retaliation under Title VII, based on lack of statutory standing. Plaintiff was employed by Prelle Financial Group as a third-party wholesaler of life-insurance products to clients of UBS. Plaintiff alleged that he was the intentional target of the retaliation against his daughter, who was an employee of UBS.The court agreed with the district court and held that plaintiff's nonemployee status forecloses his statutory standing to sue because Title VII claims require an employment relationship between plaintiff and defendant. The court held that plaintiff's daughter's status as an employee is not enough to deposit plaintiff into federal court. Rather, plaintiff must show that his personal interests are arguably covered, which he has failed to do. View "Simmons v. UBS Financial Services, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against a correctional officer and several staff members and administrators under 42 U.S.C. 1983, as well as state tort law, for allegedly failing to protect him from an attack by another inmate in violation of the Eighth Amendment. After defendants successfully moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the district court denied plaintiff's motion to alter or amend the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e).The Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding that plaintiff failed to allege that the correctional officer was negligent, much less that he consciously disregarded any risk of serious harm when the inmate attacked plaintiff. In this case, plaintiff moved to alter or amend the judgment based on the affidavit of a fellow inmate who claimed to have witnessed at least one food-slot attack a week, and often more than one a day, over the past fifteen years. The court held that the inmate's claim to have witnessed roughly a thousand food-slot assaults was not credible and that even if it was, it did not demonstrate that defendants were aware of a specific danger to plaintiff. Finally, the court denied all pending motions as moot. View "Torres v. Livingston" on Justia Law