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

Plaintiffs filed suit against federal officials and others after they were sexually assaulted while being transported from an immigration detention center. Plaintiffs claimed violations of their Fifth Amendment due process right to freedom from deliberate indifference to a substantial risk of serious harm, alleging that the officials knew of violations of a contractual provision requiring that transported detainees be escorted by at least one officer of the same gender, and that the officials understood the provision aimed to prevent sexual assault. On appeal, Defendants Robertson and Rosado, federal officials who worked as ICE Contracting Officer's Technical Representatives (COTRs), challenged the denial of their motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity. The court concluded that plaintiffs properly alleged that Robertson and Rosado had actual knowledge both of the violations of the Service Agreement provision and of that provision's assault-preventing objective. However, because the complaint did not plausibly allege the violation of a clearly established constitutional right, Robertson and Rosado were entitled to qualified immunity and the district court erred in denying their motion to dismiss. View "Doe, et al. v. Robertson, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit for damages under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics against ten federal officers, in their individual capacities, based on their alleged roles in contributing to the death of ICE Special Agent Zapata and the serious injury of Agent Avila. The agents were ambushed and shot by drug cartel members in Mexico using weapons they allegedly obtained unlawfully in the United States. The court concluded that the district court did not explicitly rule on defendants' qualified immunity defense; the district court failed to make an initial determination that plaintiffs' allegations, if true, would defeat qualified immunity; and the district court did not identify any questions of fact it needed to resolve before it would be able to determine whether defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. Because the district court did not fulfill its duty under Backe v. LeBlanc, Wicks v. Miss. State Emp't Servs., Helton v. Clements, and Lion Boulos v. Wilson, the court had jurisdiction to review the district court's discovery order and vacated it. The court remanded with instructions for the district court to follow the procedures outlined in Backe, Wicks, Helton, and Lion Boulos. View "Zapata, et al. v. Melson, et al." on Justia Law

The district court held that ICP had proven that defendants' allocation of Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) in Dallas resulted in disparate impact on African-American residents under the Fair Housing Act (FHA), 42 U.S.C. 3604(a) and 3605(a). At issue was the correct legal standard to be applied to disparate impact claims under the FHA. The court adopted the HUD burden-shifting approach found in 24 C.F.R. 100.500 for claims of disparate impact under the FHA and remanded to the district court for application of this standard in the first instance. View "Inclusive Communities Project v. TX Dept. of Housing, et al." on Justia Law

The Parishes filed suit against BP and others involved in the "Deepwater Horizon" oil spill, seeking to recover penalties under The Louisiana Wildlife Protection Statute, La. R.S. 56:40:1. On appeal, the Parishes challenged the denial of its motion to remand to state court and dismissal of its claims as preempted by federal law. The court concluded that the state law claims were removable pursuant to the broad jurisdictional grant of section 1349 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA), 43 U.S.C. 1349. The court also concluded that the district court correctly concluded that the Parishes' claims were preempted by the Clean Water Act (CWA), 33 U.S.C. 1321, as interpreted in International Paper Co v. Ouellette, and that Congress did not reject that interpretation explicitly or by negative implication in the CWA or when it passed the Oil Pollution Act (OPA), 33 U.S.C. 2718(c). Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "In Re: Deepwater Horizon" on Justia Law

Relators filed suit against their former employers, alleging that defendants defrauded the Government by filing fraudulent Medicare and Medicaid claims. At issue was whether the district court properly held that, because there was no qui tam complaint in existence at the time the Government pursued criminal charges against defendants, the criminal proceeding did not constitute an "alternate remedy" under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. 3730(c)(5). The court held that because there was no qui tam action pending at the commencement of the restitution proceeding, the restitution proceeding did not constitute an alternate remedy under the statute. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's partial summary judgment in favor of the Government and remanded for further proceedings. View "Babalola, et al. v. Sharma, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, the police chief, filed suit against defendant, the mayor, alleging unconstitutional retaliation as well as state tort law claims. On interlocutory appeal, defendant challenged the district court's order denying qualified immunity and plaintiff cross-appealed the district court's dismissal of one of his tort claims. Because the court concluded that plaintiff acted pursuant to his official job duties, the court need not consider the remaining prongs of the First Amendment retaliation test since he could not show that defendant violated his First Amendment rights. Therefore, the court remanded, concluding that the district court erred in denying defendant's motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. The court granted defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiff's cross appeal, declining to exercise pendent appellate jurisdiction over a state law tort claim in an interlocutory appeal of the district court's order denying qualified immunity. View "Gibson v. Kilpatrick" on Justia Law

Under a Power Sales Agreement, the Authorities granted Entergy the right to oversee the generation of power and to purchase the generated power. Plaintiffs filed suit against Entergy after their properties were flooded and eroded after the Authorities and Entergy opened spillway gates during certain times. Because the state law property damages claims at issue here infringed on FERC's operational control, the court held that they were conflict preempted. Accordingly, the court held that the district court properly concluded that the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791-828c, preempted plaintiffs' claim for negligence. The court affirmed the district court's judgment in its entirety. View "Simmons, et al. v. Sabine River Authority, et al." on Justia Law

Police officers filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, 1988, alleging, inter alia, that the Lafayette PD Defendants imposed a "code of silence" to prevent police officers from reporting certain civil rights abuses and corruption within the police department and that these defendants retaliated against them for objecting to these practices. On appeal, police officers challenged the district court's grant of a protective order requiring, among other things, that a particular website they operated be "taken down" in its entirety, which was issued at the request of officials and entities within the Lafayette PD. Concluding that the court had appellate jurisdiction over the appeal, the court held that the district court erred in concluding that the entirety of the website was substantially likely to cause prejudice; the district court's determination that the entire website demonstrated a substantial likelihood of impacting the jury venire was overbroad and clearly erroneous; and, therefore, the court vacated and remanded for further proceedings. View "Marceaux, et al. v. Lafayette City-Parish Con. Gov't, et al." on Justia Law

The DOJ filed suit against the City in order to remedy the patterns or practices identified in an investigation of conduct by the New Orleans Police Department (NOPD) that subjected individuals to excessive force, unlawful searches and seizures, and discriminatory policing practices. On the same day the complaint was filed, the City and the DOJ agreed to a proposed consent decree outlining reform measures for the NOPD. On appeal, the City challenged the district court's orders entering judgment on the consent decree and denying the City's motion to vacate the judgment under Rule 60(b). The court concluded that the City consented to both consent decrees at issue; the City could afford to fund both consent decrees; the secondary employment provisions of the NOPD consent decree did not violate federal or state law; the investigations and negotiations with the DOJ were not tainted by the actions of DOJ employees; and procedural deficiencies did not taint the district court's approval process and further erode the City's consent. Accordingly, the court rejected the City's contentions and affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. City of New Orleans" on Justia Law

Plaintiff and his wife filed suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. 2671 et seq., against the Army after plaintiff, an employee of a private Army contractor, was injured on the job when he tripped and fell. Plaintiff sued the Government for negligence and premises liability because he found that the workers' compensation benefits he received through his employer's policy was insufficient to cover his needs. Under Texas law, general contractors who require subcontractors to provide workers' compensation insurance to their employees and who pay for that coverage were "statutory employers" protected by the exclusive-remedy provision. In this instance, the parties agreed that the Government has taken the basic steps it needed to take to avail itself to the exclusive-remedy rule as a statutory employer. The court concluded that, because plaintiff did not allege a lack of notice or prejudice from any lack of notice, the federal government was in "like circumstances" as a Texas statutory employer. Accordingly, plaintiff's workers' compensation benefits were his exclusive remedy, and his claims against the Government were properly dismissed. View "Willoughby, et al. v. United States" on Justia Law