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

Petitioner was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death by a Texas court in 1991. The United States Supreme Court ordered Petitioner resentenced in 2007. After he was sentenced to death a second time, Petitioner exhausted his state remedies and then petitioned for federal habeas relief. The district court denied his petition and did not certify any questions for appellate review. Petitioner sought a certificate of appealability (“COA”).   The Fifth Circuit denied Petitioner’s application for a COA. The court explained that the district court found the state court’s rejection of prejudice to be reasonable under Strickland, especially considering the jury’s opportunity to assess Petitioner’s credibility in light of the eyewitness description of the crime’s brutality. No reasonable jurist could find the district court’s assessment debatable or wrong. Further, the court reasoned that reasonable jurists could not debate the district court’s conclusion that, as evidenced in extremely thorough opinions by the state court and magistrate judge, the state court reasonably applied Strickland in holding that trial counsel was not ineffective in preparing and presenting a mitigation defense. View "Brewer v. Lumpkin" on Justia Law

Plaintiff alleged that he was denied a bathroom break by his supervisor at a Dallas, Texas, warehouse until he was forced to defecate on himself at his workstation. Plaintiff sued his employer, UPS, for negligent supervision, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED). The district court dismissed the first two claims under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and granted UPS’s motion for summary judgment on the third. Plaintiff appealed.   The Fifth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part. The court explained that the district court correctly held that Plaintiff has not met the standard for IIED claims. However, it erred in concluding that Plaintiff’s negligent supervision claim was preempted by federal law. Further, the court wrote that based on its Erie guess, the court also disagreed with the district court’s conclusion that the alleged facts do not constitute an invasion of privacy. The court concluded that the invasion of privacy tort covers the alleged facts. In recent years, there have been troubling reports of industry practices that deny employees adequate bathroom breaks. It is important to clarify that such actions, or similar examples of public humiliation by an exhibition of intimate personal details or actions, are not immune from liability. View "Amin v. United Parcel Service" on Justia Law

After the Acting General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board withdrew an unfair labor practice complaint that his predecessor had issued against a union, the aggrieved employer requested permission to appeal the complaint’s withdrawal to the Board. The Board denied the request, concluding that the Acting General Counsel’s decision was an unreviewable act of prosecutorial discretion. The employer then petitioned the Fifth Circuit for review of the Board’s order.   The Fifth Circuit denied the petition. The court concluded that it has jurisdiction over the petition for review, that Acting General Counsel’s designation was valid and that the Board permissibly determined that Acting General Counsel had discretion to withdraw the complaint against the Unions. The court explained that the Board’s own conclusion that the General Counsel has the discretion to withdraw unfair labor practice complaints in cases where a motion for summary judgment has been filed but no hearing has occurred, and the Board has neither issued a Notice to Show Cause nor transferred the case to itself fits squarely within the holding of UFCW. As such, it is a permissible interpretation of the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”) View "United Natural Foods v. NLRB" on Justia Law

A federal jury convicted Petitioners of visa fraud, and the government charged them with removability based on that conviction. Petitioners contend that the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) erred in holding that the visa fraud waiver could not overcome the grounds for their removal. Petitioners also raised a due process claim and issues the BIA did not address.   The Fifth Circuit dismissed the petition for review in part for lack of jurisdiction and denied it in part. The court held that Section 1227(a)(1)(H) does not function to waive a charge under Section 1227(a)(3)(B)(iii). The BIA’s treatment of Petitioners, in this case, is dissimilar and far from arbitrary—the government charged them with removability for fraud convictions under a provision intended to make aliens removable for committing specifically that crime. The government simply applied the law as Congress wrote it. Further, the court wrote that the IJ and the BIA found no need to consider Petitioners’ other arguments. Petitioners submitted significant evidence to the agency and were afforded multiple oral hearings to present their case, where the IJ reviewed their evidence. Petitioners were also afforded the opportunity to argue their theory of the law. Thus, Petitioners have not shown a violation of their due process rights. View "Reese v. Garland" on Justia Law

Appellants are both citizens of Venezuela. They were both admitted to the United States as nonimmigrant visitors and remained in the United States beyond the expiration of their authorization to remain. Appellants filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. Section 2241 following their criminal convictions. The district courts granted both Petitions. However, Appellants challenged the denial of attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”).   The Fifth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that since “a habeas corpus proceeding is neither a wholly criminal nor a wholly civil action, but rather a hybrid action that is unique, a category unto itself,” it is not purely a civil action, and the EAJA does not authorize attorney’s fees for successful 28 U.S.C. Section 2241 motions. Accordingly, the court wrote that it does not need to reach the issue of whether the Government was substantially justified in its actions. View "Gomez Barco v. Witte" on Justia Law

Appellants are both citizens of Venezuela. They were both admitted to the United States as nonimmigrant visitors and remained in the United States beyond the expiration of their authorization to remain. Appellants filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. Section 2241 following their criminal convictions. The district courts granted both Petitions. However, Appellants challenged the denial of attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”).   The Fifth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that since “a habeas corpus proceeding is neither a wholly criminal nor a wholly civil action, but rather a hybrid action that is unique, a category unto itself,” it is not purely a civil action, and the EAJA does not authorize attorney’s fees for successful 28 U.S.C. Section 2241 motions. Accordingly, the court wrote that it does not need to reach the issue of whether the Government was substantially justified in its actions. View "Castro Balza v. Garland" on Justia Law

Defendant was a local law-enforcement agent who worked as a taskforce officer with the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). Defendant was charged with stealing money and property from arrestees, as well as destroying evidence of those activities. A jury found Defendant guilty on all counts. Following the verdict, Defendant asserted that one of the jurors (“Juror”) had failed to disclose his acquaintance with Defendant and Defendant’s wife, and Defendant moved for a new trial on the basis of juror bias. The district court denied the motion and sentenced Defendant to twenty-seven months of imprisonment. Defendant argued that the Juror’s prior romantic relationship with Defendant’s wife necessitated, at a minimum, a questioning before the court.” Defendant asserted that such questioning would reveal that the Juror was actually biased, entitling Defendant to a new trial.   The Fifth Circuit remanded for the district court to hold an evidentiary hearing on the question of juror bias. The court explained that although not every claim of actual bias on behalf of a juror militates a hearing, the district court here abused its discretion by ruling on the motion for a new trial without holding an evidentiary hearing. Defendant has established that the Juror and Defendant’s wife were friends in high school, that the Juror attended Defendant’s wedding, and that the Juror and Defendant’s wife communicated over social media up until Defendant was indicted. The Juror failed to reveal any of this information during voir dire. Accordingly, the court held that Defendant made a sufficient showing to entitle him to a hearing on his juror bias claim. View "USA v. Gemar" on Justia Law

Plaintiff spent more than twelve years in state prison because of his wrongful conviction for two murders. In 2015, the state district court granted the Harris County District Attorney’s motion to dismiss the charges against Plaintiff and Plaintiff was released from prison. Plaintiff filed a petition with the Texas Office of the Comptroller for compensation under the Tim Cole Act, which provides state compensation to individuals who have been wrongfully convicted of state crimes in state courts. His petition was denied because (1) it was not based on a finding that Plaintiff was “actually innocent,” (2) Plaintiff had not received a pardon, and (3) the district attorney had not filed a qualifying motion. While Plaintiff was pursuing compensation under the Tim Cole Act, he brought a 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 action in federal district court. The federal district court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants and dismissed the remainder of Plaintiff’s 1983 claims.   The Fifth Circuit previously certified a question to the Texas Supreme Court in this matter, asking whether the Tim Cole Act bars maintenance of a federal lawsuit involving the same subject matter that was filed before the claimant received compensation under the Tim Cole Act. Having received a response from the Texas Supreme Court in the affirmative, the Fifth Circuit affirmed. In light of this clarified meaning of Section 103.153(b) of the Tim Cole Act, the court analyzed the district court’s grant of Defendants summary judgment motion and found that Plaintiff’s federal lawsuit is barred by his acceptance of Tim Cole Act compensation. View "Brown v. City of Houston" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs own a large ten-thousand-square-foot house in Austin, Texas. They insured their home with Crestbrook Insurance Company. Their policy included “Biological Deterioration or Damage Clean Up and Removal” coverage (“mold coverage”). In April 2019, Plaintiffs discovered a widespread mold infestation in their home. Although Crestbrook covered many of their losses, it denied a generalized claim for mold growing in Plaintiffs’ walls and heating, ventilation, and air conditioning system. On cross-motions for summary judgment, a magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation in favor of Crestbrook, and the district court adopted the magistrate judge’s conclusions. At issue on appeal is whether the optional mold coverage Plaintiffs purchased in their Crestbrook policy, which provided $1.6 million in mold damage insurance in exchange for $4,554.53 in additional premiums, covers a generalized mold loss.   The Fifth Circuit affirmed. The court held that the district court incorrectly applied the Texas insurance coverage burden-shifting framework. However, Crestbrook is entitled to summary judgment regardless. The court wrote that the insurance company has demonstrated that a generalized mold claim is excluded under the policy. Plaintiffs have not met their burden of showing that an exception to the exclusion in their insurance contract brings their claim back within coverage View "Buchholz v. Crestbrook" on Justia Law

Defendant and her boyfriend stole hundreds of firearms, eight silencers, a wedding ring, two tennis bracelets, earrings, and two other ringsfrom an elderly couple. Defendant pleaded guilty to possession of stolen firearms and was sentenced to 108 months’ incarceration and ordered her to pay restitution in the amount of $75,605.97. As a condition of the plea agreement, Defendant waived the right to appeal except as to a sentence in excess of the statutory maximum.Defendant appealed the court's restitution order. The Fifth Circuit held that Defendant raised a bona fide question as to whether the restitution ordered by the district court exceeds the victim’s loss or whether the Government failed to prove that Munoz proximately caused damages in that amount. Thus, she did not waive the right to bring these particular claims. However, on the merits, the court determined that Defendant's claims failed and affirmed her sentence and restitution order. View "USA v. Munoz" on Justia Law