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

After petitioner was injured on the job while employed by Ameri-Force, he successfully obtained a workers' compensation award after filing a claim with the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs of the U.S. Department of Labor. The Fifth Circuit concluded that petitioner is entitled to attorney's fees under the plain text of 33 U.S.C. 928(b) and reversed the decision of the Benefits Review Board, remanding for further proceedings. In this case, all the criteria of an award of attorney's fees under section 928(b) are satisfied as to the claims examiner's August 24, 2016 recommendation. View "Rivera v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs" on Justia Law

On remand from the Supreme Court in light of Borden v. United States, 141 S. Ct. 1817, 1834 (2021), which held that offenses involving a mens rea of recklessness do not qualify as violent felonies under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), the Fifth Circuit vacated defendant's sentence and remanded for reconsideration. The court remanded because the district court did not have the benefit of this intervening Supreme Court authority at sentencing, resulting in an erroneous guidelines calculation, and because the Government has failed to show that the error was harmless. View "United States v. Greer" on Justia Law

This case, involving a dispute about the effect of provisions in the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act on the contraceptive mandate found in the Affordable Care Act, became moot with issuance of the Supreme Court's decision in Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania, 140 S. Ct. 2367 (2020).The Fifth Circuit concluded that plaintiffs no longer have a cognizable injury and the underlying dispute is moot. The court also concluded that Nevada did not cause the case to become moot; it was moot after the ruling in Little Sisters, and vacatur serves public interests in that it vacates a permanent injunction that Nevada never had proper opportunity to litigate the merits of before the district court; and, regardless, plaintiffs conceded Nevada was entitled to vacatur at oral argument. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded to the district court with instructions to dismiss as moot. View "DeOtte v. Nevada" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit denied a petition for review challenging the BIA's decision affirming the denial of petitioner's applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). While the court has misgivings about the IJ's reliance on inter-proceeding evidence under Matter of R-K-K-, 26 I&N Dec. 658 (BIA 2015), the court concluded that the judge's credibility findings were otherwise supported by substantial evidence and that petitioner's due process claims based on the IJ's alleged bias lacked merit. The court further concluded that the BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying petitioner's motion to remand to consider new evidence. View "Singh v. Garland" on Justia Law

Imperium, a non-diverse defendant, should not have been dismissed with prejudice in this insurance coverage dispute. The Fifth Circuit vacated the district court's dismissal and remanded for dismissal without prejudice. In this case, the district court did not abuse its discretion in reviewing the notice of removal for improper joinder; the district court did not abuse its discretion in deciding to pierce the pleadings and conduct a summary inquiry in order to analyze the relevance and meaning of the insurance policy; and the district court was correct to hold that Imperium was improperly joined where there was no plausible state cause of action against the joined defendant. The court concluded that when a district court determines that a nondiverse party has been improperly joined to defeat diversity, that party must be dismissed without prejudice. View "Ticer v. Imperium Insurance Co." on Justia Law

After SCF delivered its barge to a loading facility operated by Terral, the barge sank while secured at Terral's facility. Terral then filed suit against SCF, alleging general maritime negligence, unseaworthiness, breach of contract, and indemnity. Underlying Terral's claims is the allegation that a fracture on the barge preexisted delivery of the barge to Terral and is estimated to be two to four weeks old. In Terral's second amended complaint, it added contribution and salvage claims. SCF counterclaimed against Terral for negligence and breach of duty.The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to SCF on all of Terral's claims, concluding that Terral cannot show that there is a genuine issue of material fact over an essential element of each of its claims for which it bears the burden of proof. In this case, the district court correctly determined that Terral bears the burden of proof for all of its claims. In regard to the non-salvage claims, the court concluded that Terral lacked sufficient evidence to show that the hull was fractured prior to the barge's delivery. The court also concluded that Terral's salvage claim is foreclosed because Terral had a preexisting duty as the barge's bailee, a duty of ordinary care owed to SCF. View "Terral River Service, Inc. v. SCF Marine Inc." on Justia Law

Anthony Timpa's family filed a 42 U.S.C. 1983 suit, alleging that five officers of the Dallas Police Department violated Timpa's Fourth Amendment rights by causing his death through the prolonged use of a prone restraint with bodyweight force during his arrest. Plaintiffs asserted claims of excessive force and of bystander liability.The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the officers as to the excessive force claims. Viewing the facts in the light most positive to plaintiffs, the court concluded that none of the Graham factors justified the prolonged use of force. In this case, a jury could find that Timpa was subdued by nine minutes into the restraint and that the continued use of force was objectively unreasonable in violation of Timpa's Fourth Amendment rights. The court also concluded that plaintiffs have raised a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the use of a prone restraint with bodyweight force on an individual with three apparent risk factors—obesity, physical exhaustion, and excited delirium—created a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury. Furthermore, the record supports that Timpa was subdued nine minutes into the continuing restraint and did not pose a threat of serious harm. Finally, the court held that the state of the law in August 2016 clearly established that an officer engages in an objectively unreasonable application of force by continuing to kneel on the back of an individual who has been subdued.In regard to bystander liability claims, the court concluded that genuine disputes of material fact preclude summary judgment on these claims against Officers Mansell, Dominguez, and Vasquez. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's judgment as to these claims. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment on the bystander liability claim against Officer Rivera. View "Timpa v. Dillard" on Justia Law

The Secretary of DHS and other federal government defendants moved to stay the district court's nationwide, preliminary injunction barring enforcement of one of the federal COVID-19 vaccination mandates related to the staff of many Medicare- and Medicaid-certified providers such as hospitals, long-term care facilities, home-health agencies, and hospices.The Fifth Circuit denied the motion insofar as the order applies to the 14 Plaintiff States, concluding that the Secretary has not made a strong showing of likely success on the merits in light of BST Holdings, L.L.C. v. OSHA, 17 F.4th 604 (5th Cir. 2021). In BST, the Fifth Circuit relied in part on the "major questions doctrine" in staying the COVID-19 vaccination mandate OSHA issued for employers of a certain size. In this case, the Secretary identifies meaningful distinctions between its rule for Medicare and Medicaid-funded facilities and the broader OSHA rule — the statutory authority for the rule is different; Medicare and Medicaid were enacted under the Spending Clause rather than the Commerce Clause; and the targeted health care facilities, especially nursing homes, are where COVID-19 has posed the greatest risk. Nonetheless, the court concluded that the first stay factor requires more than showing a close call. Therefore, the court could not say that the Secretary has made a strong showing of likely success on the merits. Furthermore, the other three factors for a stay — injury to the movant, injury to the opponent, and the public interest — are important but, regardless of the outcome of analyzing them, they will not overcome the court's holding that the merits of the injunction will not likely be disturbed on appeal.Applying principles of judicial restraint, the court granted the stay as to the order's application to any other jurisdiction, concluding that the district court gave little justification for issuing an injunction outside the 14 States that brought this suit. View "Louisiana v. Becerra" on Justia Law

Following the October 1, 2017 tragedy in Las Vegas where a gunman fired several semiautomatic rifles equipped with bump stocks and killed 58 people and wounding 500 more, the ATF promulgated a rule stating that bump stocks are machineguns for purposes for the National Firearms Act (NFA) and the federal statutory bar on the possession or sale of new machine guns.The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's rejection of plaintiff's challenge to the rule, agreeing with the district court that the rule properly classifies a bump stock as a "machinegun" within the statutory definition and that the rule of lenity does not apply. The court need not address plaintiff's contentions that the ATF exceeded its statutory authority by issuing the rule or that the rule violates constitutional principles of separation of powers as resolution of these issues will not affect the outcome of the case. View "Cargill v. Garland" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit concluded that Arch, the issuer of a commercial general liability policy, has a duty to defend a highway construction project's general contractor. In this case, the developer's claims against the project's general contractor implicate defective construction of the project's drainage systems; Archer Western constructed those drainage systems; and Archer Western's commercial general liability insurer (Arch) owes a duty to defend the general contractor (CTHC) in its underlying litigation with the developer. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's judgment to the contrary. View "Zurich American Insurance Co. v. Arch Insurance Co." on Justia Law