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

Defendant challenged the district court's order that he remain detained pending trial for federal narcotics and weapons charges. Defendant conceded that there was a rebuttable presumption that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure his appearance at trial and the safety of the community.Applying the factors set forth in sec. 3142, the Fifth Circuit affirmed. Primarily, the court considered the first and fourth factors, which included the amount of drugs in question and the risk of future dangerousness. The court held that the third factor, related to whether Defendant was a flight risk, was unnecessary to support the district court's determination. View "USA v. Flores" on Justia Law

Defendant challenges two conditions of his sentence, 1.) that he refrain from excessive alcohol consumption, and 2.) that he take all mental-health medications that are prescribed by his treating physician. The government conceded that condition 1 should be struck because it was not orally pronounced by the district court. However, the Fifth Circuit rejected the government's claim that the district court's general discussion of the importance of mental health treatment was sufficient to meet the notice requirement. Thus, the court struck both conditions. View "USA v. Prado" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of securities fraud, in violation of 15 U.S.C. Sections 78j(b) and 77ff. The district court sentenced Defendant to 168 months in prison and imposed roughly $6.8 million in restitution. In exchange for Defendant's plea, the Government agreed to dismiss five other counts, which carried a maximum term of 100 years in prison. As part of his agreement, Defendant waived his right to appeal.Defendant subsequently filed notice of appeal, challenging the application of a sentencing enhancement and the court's restitution award. The Fifth Circuit dismissed Defendant's appeal, finding that he waived the right to appeal when he signed the plea agreement. View "USA v. Meredith" on Justia Law

Golden Glow Tanning Salon filed a civil rights suit against the City of Columbus, which shut down its business for seven weeks at the outset of the Covid-19 pandemic. The district court granted the City’s motion for summary judgment. Subsequent experience strongly suggests that draconian shutdowns were debatable measures from a cost-benefit standpoint, in that they inflicted enormous economic damage without necessarily “slowing the spread” of Covid-19. Golden Glow contends that the City Ordinance created an arbitrary distinction between tanning salons and liquor stores that bore no rational relationship to public health given the salon’s ability to operate safely and without customer contact   The Fifth Circuit affirmed. The court wrote that the proffered reason is not arbitrary. Further, this conclusion is not altered by Golden Glow’s contention that it could have maintained a safer environment than could liquor stores. Under rational basis review, overinclusive and underinclusive classifications are permissible, as is some resulting inequality. Further, here, the closure of the salon constitutes a deprivation of some economically productive uses (i.e., the uses forbidden by the Ordinance’s Section 2). Nothing in the record supports the conclusion that the City Ordinance rendered the entire property “valueless.” The district court was correct to find that there had been no per se taking. View "Golden Glow v. City of Columbus, MS" on Justia Law

Four years ago, L.L. was having a “severe mental health episode” and voicing “suicidal ideations.” So, his mother called the police. When the Chief of Police arrived, he ordered his officers to enter the home and, in the mix-up, L.L. was shot. Plaintiff sued the City of Duncanville for the Chief’s decision, namely “ordering officers . . . into the house.” Plaintiff argued that the Chief was a “policymaker” who—with a “callous disregard for individuals suffering from mental health episodes”—caused the “deprivation” of L.L.’s Fourth Amendment rights. The district court wasn’t convinced and dismissed the case.   The Fifth Circuit affirmed, finding that the Chief’s decision to intervene wasn’t based on deliberate indifference to any risk to L.L.’s rights. The court explained that first, it wasn’t “highly predictable” that a Fourth Amendment violation would result from the Chief’s order. The single decision exception—especially when tied to deliberate indifference—applies in rare and narrow scenarios.   Second, Plaintiff can’t show that the Chief, at the time of his order, had the “requisite degree of culpability,” namely that he completely disregarded any risk to Liggins’s Fourth Amendment rights. L.L. had stopped taking his prescription medication and was “suffering from a severe mental health episode.” View "Liggins v. Duncanville TX" on Justia Law

In June 2011, a fifteen-year-old shot his brother, an eleven-year-old, with a Remington Model 700 rifle equipped with an X-Mark Pro trigger. The boy and his parents (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) sued Remington, the retailer that sold the rifle, and Remington’s predecessors in interest (collectively, “Defendants”) in Mississippi state court. Plaintiffs emphasized that Remington had in April 2014 recalled all Model 700 rifles with X-Mark Pro triggers because the rifles “can and will spontaneously fire without pulling the trigger.” They brought state-law claims for product liability, failure to warn, negligence, and gross negligence.   Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). In their response to that motion, Plaintiffs asked to file a federal-court complaint to allege additional facts related to the statute of limitations. The Fifth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that the district court’s subject-matter jurisdiction was based on diversity of citizenship. The court, therefore, applied “federal procedural and evidentiary rules and the substantive laws of the forum state.” Mississippi has a general three-year statute of limitations. For “non-latent injuries” like the one alleged here, the cause of action accrues on the date of the injury. But Plaintiffs, who filed suit in March 2018, argue that the statute of limitations was tolled by Defendants’ fraudulent concealment. The district court rejected that argument. The Fifth Circuit agreed, finding that Plaintiffs failed to meet Rule 9(b)’s requirements. View "Stringer, et al v. Remington Arms, et al" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute one kilogram or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of heroin. This offense carries a 10-year mandatory minimum sentence, with a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. The Presentence Investigation Report (PSR) calculated the advisory imprisonment range as 135 to 168 months, or if Defendant received a three-point reduction for acceptance of responsibility, 97 to 121 months. But because of the mandatory minimum, the PSR elevated its calculated guideline range to 120 to 121 months. Palomares objected to the PSR, arguing that she was eligible for relief under the safety valve. In particular, she argued that a plain reading of Section 3553(f)(1) only requires mandatory minimum sentences for defendants whose history meets all three disqualifying criteria listed in subsections (A)– (C)—not just one. And because only one of the disqualifying criteria applied to her, she argued that she was eligible for relief.   The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling. The court held to be eligible for safety valve relief, a defendant must show that she does not have more than 4 criminal history points, does not have a 3-point offense, and does not have a 2-point violent offense. Because Defendant had a previous 3-point offense, she is ineligible for safety valve relief. The court held that the phrase “does not have” independently applies to each subsection in 18 U.S.C. Section 3553(f)(1), rendering criminal defendants ineligible for safety valve relief if they run afoul of any one of its requirements View "USA v. Palomares" on Justia Law

Petitioner is scheduled for execution on November 9, 2022. Petitioner was convicted and sentenced to death in 2004 for the capital murder of his mother. In early September of 2022, when there was no pending litigation, Petitioner moved the district court under 18 U.S.C. Section 3599(e) to compel the Texas Department of Criminal Justice to unshackle his hands during expert evaluations that his counsel had scheduled for later in September. The district court dismissed the motion for lack of jurisdiction. Petitioner appealed and filed a concurrent motion to stay his execution.   The Fifth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court and denied as moot Petitioner’s motion for stay. The court explained that intentional delay tactics near execution dates are commonplace enough that our court has a rule specifically addressing the timing of challenges to death sentences and/or execution procedures. Here, the court reasoned that because Petitioner has provided no legitimate justification as to why this appeal is anything but a delay tactic, the district court would not have abused its discretion in denying relief even if section 3599 could grant jurisdiction to make that decision. View "Beatty v. Lumpkin" on Justia Law

This mandamus petition concerns a qui tam action brought against Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc., and five Texas-based affiliates. Relator filed the initial complaint on February 5, 2021, alleging that Petitioners presented millions of dollars of false or fraudulent claims for payment under the Medicaid system.Petitioners moved to dismiss both complaints, and the district court denied those motions in large part in April of 2022. Petitioners then sought reconsideration of that order, which the district court denied in July of 2022. Discovery proceeded meanwhile; tens of thousands of documents were exchanged and several motions to compel were raised by both parties and ruled on.Seven months after the case was unsealed, Petitioners moved to transfer to the Austin Division of the Western District of Texas, arguing that it is a more convenient forum than the Amarillo Division of the Northern District of Texas, where the case was originally filed and remains pending. The district court denied the motion. Petitioners then sought mandamus relief.The Fifth Circuit affirmed, finding that Petitioners failed to show that the district court clearly abused its discretion in denying their motion to transfer. As a result, they failed to demonstrate that they are entitled to the extraordinary remedy of a writ of mandamus. View "In re Planned Parenthood Federation of America" on Justia Law

Appellants, two police officers, arrested Plaintiff, a student, at a school basketball game. The district court denied summary judgment based on qualified immunity, finding a dispute of material fact regarding the events surrounding Plaintiff's arrest. The officers filed an interlocutory appeal challenging the district court’s decision.The Fifth Circuit dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The issues raised by Plaintiff create factual disputes that meet the required threshold to overcome Appellant's qualified immunity defense at this stage. View "Byrd v. Cornelius" on Justia Law