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

These consolidated appeals involve a dispute over the enforceability of a Texas state court judgment after it had been made executory by a Louisiana state court and the judgment creditors then sought to make it executory in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. That federal court dismissed the case on res judicata grounds, but the Fifth Circuit concluded instead that the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the case because Plaintiffs failed to satisfy 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(a)’s amount-in-controversy requirement for diversity of citizenship jurisdiction.   Accordingly, the Fifth Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment dismissing Plaintiffs’ complaint on the basis of res judicata and remanded with instructions that the district court dismiss this case without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court explained that the $1,313.16 in prejudgment interest awarded in the Texas Judgment is included in determining the amount in controversy. However, the 5.00% interest from the date of the Judgment until paid in full is not. The total amount in controversy thus comes to $58,832.63. Because the amount in controversy does not exceed the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interests and costs, the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction under Section 1332(a). View "Cleartrac, et al v. Lanrick Contractors, et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, who identify as Moorish Americans, sought to enter the Caddo Parish Courthouse to file documents with the court clerk. Upon arriving at the security-screening station, plaintiffs informed the officers on duty that they wished to enter without passing through the security screening. After Plaintiffs’ repeated refusals to depart, the officers stated they would count to three and, if Plaintiffs refused to leave, they would be arrested. They did not depart and were arrested, charged with violating Louisiana Revised Statutes Section 14:63.3.Plaintiffs brought a litany of claims against various officials serving in Caddo Parish and the Louisiana state government based on their actions taken during the arrest. Plaintiffs also moved for recusal of the magistrate judge, which the district court denied.   The Fifth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that Plaintiffs have pointed to no precedent that abrogates the general “search incident to arrest” rule when religious headwear is involved. Accordingly, the district court correctly granted summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity. Further, the court held that there was no error in the district court’s denial of Plaintiffs’ motion for recusal of the magistrate judge. The magistrate judge did not work on this case in private practice nor work with Defendants’ counsel in the practice of law while he was working on this case. Nor is there evidence of any bias or knowledge of the case that would have required the district court, in its discretion, to order recusal. View "Foley Bey v. Prator" on Justia Law

Defendant is serving a federal sentence of 240 months’ imprisonment for conspiring to possess and distribute methamphetamine and hydrocodone. Since July 2020, Defendant has filed three motions for compassionate release. The district court rejected Defendant’s first motion because he had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, and denied Defendant’s second motion on the merits on November 18, 2020. More than a year later, Defendant filed a third motion for compassionate release. The district court denied the third motion “for the same reasons stated in” its November 18, 2020 order. Defendant now appeals the district court’s order denying his third motion.   The Fifth Circuit the district court’s order denying Defendant’s motion for compassionate release and remanded for reconsideration. The court explained that while Defendant’s s third compassionate-release motion may have little chance of success, judges have an obligation to say enough that the public can be confident that cases are decided in a reasoned way. Here, since the district court’s original order did not explain how it balanced the Section 3553(a) factors or its specific factual conclusions as to any of those factors, it is impossible to tell how the district court would have considered this new information. View "USA v. Handlon" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of numerous wire fraud and money-laundering charges arising from a fraudulent scheme to cause the Department of Veterans Affairs to pay over $71 million in GI-Bill funding to his trade school. Defendant raised several challenges to his convictions and his sentence.   The Fifth Circuit affirmed in nearly all respects, except that it vacated the forfeiture order and remanded it for further proceedings. The court held that Defendant fails to show the evidence was insufficient to allow a rational jury to convict him on the money-laundering counts. Further, the court concluded that conclude that the indictment was not faulty and the district court did not err in declining to order a bill of particulars.   Moreover, the court explained that illegally provided services that could have “hypothetically” been provided in a “legal manner”—like Defendant’s operation of the school—implicate the second definition of proceeds under Section 981(a)(2)(B), under which a defendant may deduct “the direct costs incurred in providing the goods or services.” The focus of any Section 981(a)(2) analysis is the underlying criminal conduct, not the crime itself.   That subsection further provides that Defendant “shall have the burden of proof with respect to the issue of direct costs” and also that those costs “shall not include any part of the overhead expenses of the entity providing the goods and services, or any part of the income taxes paid by the entity.” Therefore the court remanded for determining whether Defendant can prove any offset under the terms of Section 981(a)(2)(B). View "USA v. Davis" on Justia Law

Believing Texas intends to enforce its abortion laws to penalize their out-of-state actions, Plaintiffs sued Texas Attorney General (Petitioner). Petitioner moved to dismiss the suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiffs then issued subpoenas to obtain Petitioner’s testimony. Petitioner moved to quash the subpoenas, which the district court initially granted. On reconsideration, however, the district court changed course, denied the motion, and ordered Petitioner to testify either at a deposition or evidentiary hearing. Petitioner petitioned for a writ of mandamus to shield him from the district court’s order.   The Fifth Circuit granted the writ, concluding that the district court clearly erred by not first ensuring its own jurisdiction and also by declining to quash the subpoenas. The court explained that the district court committed a “clear abuse of discretion” by finding that exceptional circumstances justified ordering Petitioner to testify. Petitioner has therefore shown a clear and indisputable right to relief. The court further found that the errors are ones that cannot be rectified as the case progresses. Petitioners compelled testimony cannot be undone or corrected by the district court or a reviewing court once it occurs. Accordingly, the court was satisfied that, under the circumstances, it should exercise its discretion to issue the writ. View "In Re: Ken Paxton" on Justia Law

Plaintiff was dismissed from her role as a Cadre On-Call Response Employee (CORE) for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in 2017. Plaintiff claimed that her dismissal resulted from race-based discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Following administrative proceedings in which an administrative law judge rejected her complaint, Plaintiff filed suit in federal district court. Plaintiff appealed the district court’s order granting FEMA summary judgment and denying her motion for additional time to conduct discovery, arguing that the court abused its discretion by declining to grant a continuance under Rule 56(d) as required by Chandler v. Roudebush.   The Fifth Circuit affirmed. The court concluded that because Plaintiff failed to diligently pursue her limited discovery needs during the two-month continuance, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying her Rule 56(d) motion. Further, Chandler cannot be construed as demanding further discovery where, as here, the government acquiesces, but the employee fails to diligently pursue it. Plaintiff received a de novo trial and treatment equal to that afforded to a private-sector employee. The district court did not contravene Chandler by denying further discovery and granting the summary judgment motion. View "Dominick v. DHS" on Justia Law

Defendants operated a methamphetamine operation in Houston, occasionally distributing the drugs to New Orleans. Both Defendants were arrested and charged with various federal drug charges. Upon their arrest, Defendants agreed to provide information to law enforcement in exchange for the government's agreement not to use any of their statements throughout the proceeding. However, the agreement exempted anything related to a crime of violence. Subsequent investigations put Defendants at the center of a homicide investigation, and they eventually admitted to disposing of a body. For the drug offenses, the court sentenced Defendants to the statutory maximum of 240 months. The district court found that Defendants violated their agreement by failing to initially disclose information related to the homicide. Defendants appealed the use of the information they provided in the proffer.The Fifth Circuit affirmed. The evidence that eventually came out related to the homicide was related to the drug trafficking charges. Thus, the harm that stemmed from their conduct was properly considered at trial. View "USA v. Cantu-Cox" on Justia Law

Defendants operated a methamphetamine operation in Houston, occasionally distributing the drugs to New Orleans. Both Defendants were arrested and charged with various federal drug charges. Upon their arrest, Defendants agreed to provide information to law enforcement in exchange for the government's agreement not to use any of their statements throughout the proceeding. However, the agreement exempted anything related to a crime of violence. Subsequent investigations put Defendants at the center of a homicide investigation, and they eventually admitted to disposing of a body. For the drug offenses, the court sentenced Defendants to the statutory maximum of 240 months. The district court found that Defendants violated their agreement by failing to initially disclose information related to the homicide. Defendants appealed the use of the information they provided in the proffer.The Fifth Circuit affirmed. The evidence that eventually came out related to the homicide was related to the drug trafficking charges. Thus, the harm that stemmed from their conduct was properly considered at trial. View "USA v. Cantu-Cox" on Justia Law

A district court convicted Defendant of kidnapping and racketeering following a bench trial. Defendant appealed  his sentence and racketeering conviction, arguing that the district court lacked substantial evidence to convict him and clearly erred by failing to apply a mitigating role adjustment.   The Fifth Circuit affirmed, finding that Defendant failed to show that the district court lacked evidence to conclude that he committed a crime of violence with intent to further a drug trafficking enterprise, and he does not demonstrate that the district court erred in its sentencing calculation for kidnapping. The court explained that viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, there are sufficient facts to justify the trial judge’s conclusion that Defendant committed the kidnapping with the intent to further drug trafficking activity. Defendant’s reference to a partnership with a known drug dealer in the Dallas area, his proximity to locations known for drug dealing, and his actions on behalf of the drug dealer during the kidnapping support reasonable inferences that Defendant acted to further drug dealing activities.   Furthermore, the government’s evidence provides little basis for Defendant to argue that he was “substantially less culpable than the average participant” in the kidnapping given that he picked the victim up from the street, transported him to the apartment, took part in the violence, and pursued him afterward. The district court did not err by declining to apply the mitigating role adjustment. View "USA v. Lott" on Justia Law

Plaintiff alleges that when she was fourteen years old, she was brutally sexually assaulted by another student in a stairwell at Cypress Creek High School, following an abusive relationship with the same student. After suffering severe injuries and weathering subsequent harassment, Plaintiff says that instead of investigating her assault and providing her with academic or other appropriate support, Cypress Creek recommended that she drop out of school. After doing so—and never returning to any high school—Plaintiff sued the school district under Title IX, arguing that it was deliberately indifferent both to the risk of her sexual assault and in response to her abusive relationship, sexual assault, and subsequent related harassment and bullying on school property.   The district granted Cypress Creek’s motion for summary judgment, and Plaintiff appealed. The Fifth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part. The court explained that because the district court correctly concluded that the District was not deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s risk of sexual assault, the court affirmed that portion of the judgment.   However, the totality of the circumstances, including the District’s lack of investigation, awareness of the pre-assault abusive relationship, failure to prevent in-person and cyberattacks from the assailant and other students post-assault, and failure to provide any academic or other appropriate support to Plaintiff culminated in exactly what Title IX is designed to prevent—the tragedy of Plaintiff dropping out of school. A reasonable jury could find that the District violated Title IX based on these facts. Accordingly, the court reversed that portion of the judgment. View "Roe v. Cypress-Fairbanks Indep" on Justia Law