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

Aguirre-Rivera was charged with conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute at least one kilogram of heroin, 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)(i), and 846. The verdict form indicated a general verdict of “Guilty” but, to a question asking, “Do you find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knew or reasonably should have known that the scope of the conspiracy involved at least one kilogram or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of heroin?” The jury answered, “No.” The PSR recommended a range of 151-188 months of imprisonment, erroneously stating that Aguirre-Rivera’s offense was “Conspiracy to Possess with Intent to Distribute 100 Grams or More of Heroin,” 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B), and 846—an offense that carries a statutory minimum of five years of imprisonment. At Aguirre-Rivera’s sentencing hearing, the court reiterated that Aguirre-Rivera was “convicted of the offense of conspiracy to possess heroin with the intent to distribute, the weight of which was 100 grams or more,” overruled Aguirre-Rivera’s objections to the PSR, granted a minor role reduction, resulting in a Guidelines range of 97-121 months, then sentenced Aguirre-Rivera to 60 months' imprisonment.The Fifth Circuit affirmed the denial of Aguirre-Rivera’s motion for judgment of acquittal, vacated his sentence, and remanded. Because the drug quantity is not a formal element of the conspiracy offense, the jury’s answer regarding the quantity involved negated only the sentencing enhancement under section 841(b), not the general guilty verdict. View "United States v. Aguirre-Rivera" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) to plaintiff in a personal injury case where his counsel failed to see the electronic notification of a summary judgment motion filed by defendants. In this case, counsel's computer's email system placed the notification in a folder that he does not regularly monitor, and counsel did not check the docket after the deadline for dispositive motions had elapsed. Consequently, counsel did not file an opposition to the summary judgment motion.The court concluded that its precedent makes clear that no such relief is available under circumstances such as this. The court explained that counsel provided the email address to defendants, counsel was plainly in the best position to ensure that his own email was working properly, and counsel could have checked the docket after the agreed deadline for dispositive motions had already passed. Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Rule 59(e) motion. The court also concluded that plaintiff forfeited his claim that a fact dispute precluded summary judgment by failing to raise it first before the district court. View "Rollins v. Home Depot USA, Inc." on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit dismissed plaintiff's appeal of the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants and imposition of a third strike under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). The court concluded that plaintiff is a vexatious litigant who has admitted that he files federal lawsuits against his custodians as a means of intimidating them to comply with his demands for things like antacid and high-protein food. This is his seventh of at least twelve such complaints. The court barred plaintiff from filing additional abusive suits while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. View "Hale v. Harrison County Board of Supervisors" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of plaintiff's former employer, a restaurant chain, and to his former manager. The court concluded that, although plaintiff presented a prima facie case that the restaurant discriminated and retaliated against him, he failed to offer persuasive evidence that the restaurant's proffered, permissible reasons for his termination were a pretext for unlawful action. In this case, plaintiff failed to demonstrate that his employer's reasons for firing him—lying and preparing a dish incorrectly—constitute pretextual reasons to cover over racial discrimination and retaliation. Furthermore, plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence of bad faith or malice to support his tortious interference claim. View "Jones v. Gulf Coast Restaurant Group, Inc." on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the hospital because plaintiff failed to show that the hospital intentionally discriminated against him based on his deafness. The court explained that the summary-judgment evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff, is sufficient for a reasonable jury to determine that the hospital should have known that plaintiff needed an on-site interpreter. However, fatal to plaintiff's claims, the evidence is not sufficient for a reasonable jury to determine that the hospital had actual knowledge of plaintiff's need for an on-site interpreter. In this case, plaintiff made no attempt to argue in this appeal or in district court that his nominal-damage claims, if any exist, are not subject to the same intentional-discrimination standard. Furthermore, plaintiff expressly abandoned his claims for injunctive relief and has not pressed his claim for a declaratory judgment on appeal. View "Francois v. Our Lady of the Lake Hospital, Inc." on Justia Law

Petitioner was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death. Petitioner claims that the victim's parents were opposed to him receiving the death penalty and conveyed that opposition to the prosecutors prior to trial. Nevertheless, despite knowing this, the prosecutors stated during closing argument at the punishment phase of trial that all of the victim's family and everyone that loved him believed that the death penalty was appropriate. Petitioner unsuccessfully sought habeas relief in state court and subsequently in federal court.The Fifth Circuit concluded that petitioner is required to obtain a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the district court's dismissal of his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion; the court declined to issue a COA; and the court declined to grant petitioner's motion invoking the All Writs Act. The court explained that petitioner's Rule 60(b) motion is ultimately an effort to advance "a new ground for relief" that was not contained in his initial federal habeas petition rather than an effort to redress a procedural defect in his initial federal habeas proceedings. Furthermore, the district court did not err in concluding that petitioner's motion invoking the All Writs Act should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because 28 U.S.C. 2254 is the proper avenue for him to seek relief. The court affirmed the district court's order transferring petitioner's new section 2254 petition to this court as a second or successive petition within the meaning of section 2244(b) and dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction. The court affirmed the district court's order denying compensation to petitioner's counsel for their work on his successive state habeas proceedings. View "Storey v. Lumpkin" on Justia Law

Parada-Orellana, a citizen of El Salvador, entered the U.S. in 2005 and was detained. She was served while in detention with a notice, ordering her to appear at a date and time to be set. ICE agents advised Parada-Orellana that she would need to update her address with the immigration court. Parada-Orellana claims she gave her “immigration papers” to her uncle’s wife, who misplaced them. Parada-Orellana relocated to Maryland without updating her address. An IJ ordered Parada-Orellana to be removed in absentia, reasoning that because she failed to provide her address, the court was not required to provide her with written notice of her hearing.In 2010, ICE detained Parada-Orellana. After her release, she consulted lawyers but did not address the deportation order. In 2015, Parada-Orellana married Ferman, a U.S. citizen. Parada-Orellana claims she helps Ferman run his business and manage his medical conditions. They do not have children together. Ferman filed an I-130 petition for alien relative, which was approved. Parada-Orellana then moved to reopen her removal proceedings to rescind her removal order or to allow her to apply for cancellation of removal because her husband would suffer exceptional and unusual hardship without her support.An IJ determined that Parada-Orellana was entitled to equitable tolling of the deadline for her motion, considering the Supreme Court’s Pereira decision, but denied the motion on the merits. The BIA dismissed an appeal. The Fifth Circuit denied a petition for review. While Parada-Orellana did not have a “full merits” hearing on her application for cancellation, the BIA’s conclusion that she failed to establish a prima facie case for the underlying relief is a discretionary decision barred from review by 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(B)(i). View "Parada-Orellana v. Garland" on Justia Law

In 2015, PRIDE, a non-profit that employs individuals with disabilities, hired Johnson, an African-American. Johnson endured repeated race-based harassment by his fellow PRIDE employee Palomares. Johnson’s colleague corroborated that Palomares used racially offensive language and generally treated non-Hispanic employees worse than their Hispanic counterparts. Beyond his mistreatment by Palomares, several other workplace incidents occurred that Johnson viewed as harassing. Johnson made multiple complaints regarding Palomares’s harassing behavior and was told, “you’ve just got to be tough and keep going.” Ultimately, Johnson angrily confronted Palomares at PRIDE’s worksite. Johnson was written up and told to “follow instructions and remain respectful.” Johnson interviewed for a supervisory carpentry position. PRIDE selected a Hispanic individual for the position, who, unlike Johnson, had supervisory experience. Johnson filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. PRIDE’s Human Resources Director, acknowledged that Johnson reported that Palomares had been harassing him but PRIDE ultimately “did not find that any harassment.” Later that month, PRIDE called Johnson to discuss problems with his attendance. Johnson said coming into work was “too stressful,” declared that he was resigning, and walked out.The district court dismissed Johnson’s suit under 42 U.S.C. 1981 alleging discrimination based on race and retaliation when he complained about the discrimination. The Fifth Circuit affirmed in part. Summary judgment for the employer was proper as to most of Johnson’s claims, but the court erred in its ruling on Johnson’s hostile work environment claim. View "Johnson v. PRIDE Industries, Inc." on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of federal habeas relief to petitioner based on the ineffective assistance of counsel. Petitioner was convicted of second degree murder stemming from the discharge of his gun during a fight that killed the victim. Petitioner testified that the gun fired accidentally when the victim pulled on the gun and the two men collided. Defendant's testimony was contradicted by an eyewitness supposedly watching the fight from outside her apartment across the street who said she saw the victim backing away from petitioner with his hands raised at the moment the gun fired. Petitioner's trial counsel never attempted to interview the eyewitness or her roommate, who would have testified that the eyewitness was actually inside their apartment at the time of the shooting.The court concluded that counsel's performance was deficient and that the state court's determination to the contrary was an unreasonable application of Strickland v. Washington. In this case, the court cannot say that a fairminded jurist would find counsel's strategic decision not to request a continuance or to even try to interview the witness to be a "conscious and informed decision." Given the importance of the witness's testimony, the court found that no fairminded jurist could conclude that the failure to introduce the roommate's impeachment testimony would not have undermined confidence in the outcome. Therefore, petitioner was prejudiced by counsel's deficient performance. View "Hughes v. Vannoy" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, prisoners at East Mississippi Correctional Facility (EMCF), filed suit challenging their conditions of confinement by filing a class action against MDOC officials. The district court ultimately found no constitutional violations and denied plaintiffs' requested injunction. Plaintiffs appealed three of the conditions they originally challenged: medical care, protection from harm, and solitary confinement.The Fifth Circuit affirmed, rejecting plaintiffs' contention that the district court erred by considering the challenged conditions in isolation instead of in combination. Rather, the district court grouped plaintiffs' allegations into several categories based on different identifiable human needs and considered all allegations related to each category in a distinct section. The court also concluded that plaintiffs' contention that the district court erred by failing to consider whether past violations were likely to recur is foreclosed by Farmer v. Brennan. See 511 U.S. 825. Finally, the court rejected plaintiffs' contention that the district court wrongly disregarded the testimony of their expert witnesses, and concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in this case. View "Dockery v. Cain" on Justia Law