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

The Fifth Circuit denied a petition for review an order of removal based on defendant's conviction of online solicitation of a minor. In this case, an IJ terminated petitioner's removal proceedings, but the BIA partially vacated the IJ's decision and remanded for further proceedings. On remand, the IJ ordered petitioner removed.After determining that the court has jurisdiction to consider the petition for review, the court concluded that the BIA did not err in finding petitioner removable under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(E)(i) for a crime of child abuse. The court explained that Garcia v. Barr, 969 F.3d 129, 132 (5th Cir. 2020), foreclosed petitioner's argument that the court should not give deference to the BIA's broad interpretation of a "crime of child abuse" under section 1227(a)(2)(E)(i). The court agreed with the BIA that petitioner's conviction for online solicitation of a minor in violation of section 33.021(c) of the Texas Penal Code falls within the BIA's definition of a crime of child abuse. View "Adeeko v. Garland" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Couvillion in a declaratory judgment action brought by Taylor, seeking tort damages and equitable relief for Couvillion's trespass and unauthorized activities at the MC20 Site. The court concluded that Couvillion was entitled to immunity under Yearsley v. W.A. Ross Construction Company, 309 U.S. 18 (1940), where there was no genuine fact dispute as to whether Couvillion's actions were authorized and directed by the government, and where Couvillion's authority to carry out its actions was validly conferred by Congress. View "Taylor Energy Company, LLC v. Couvillion Group, LLC" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment based on qualified immunity to police officers who shot and killed Travis Stevenson. Stevenson was shot after unsuccessful efforts by police to deescalate a situation where Stevenson repeatedly slammed his vehicle into a police cruiser and a concrete pillar in front of an apartment building while yelling "Kill me!"The court concluded that the district court correctly held, in accordance with precedent, that plaintiffs' excessive-force claim fails as a matter of law. In this case, Stevenson was using his car as a weapon; Stevenson, like the drivers in the court's precedent, exhibited volatile behaviors that contributed to the officers justification in firing to prevent death or great bodily harm; and plaintiffs have not produced any evidence that suggests the officers might have had a reasonable alternative course of action. The court agreed with the district court that plaintiffs forfeited their failure-to-train claim against the sheriff by failing to plead it in their complaint and raising it only in response to the officers' motion for summary judgment. View "Jackson v. Gautreaux" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. In 2003, plaintiff pleaded guilty to armed bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2113(a) and (d) and brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1). Defendant received a mandatory life sentence for the armed bank robbery, as required by the federal three-strikes law, 18 U.S.C. 3559(c)(1), because the offense was a serious violent felony and defendant had two prior convictions for serious violent felonies. Defendant argues that his life sentence should be vacated in light of Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591, 597 (2015).The court concluded that, because plaintiff's prior convictions qualify as serious violent felonies without relying on the residual clause in 18 U.S.C. 3559(c)(2)(F)(ii), the district court did not err in denying defendant's 2255 motion. In this case, defendant's prior conviction for bank robbery under section 2113(a), is an enumerated offense that falls within the statute's definition of serious violent felony. Furthermore, defendant's prior conviction for Louisiana armed robbery meets the definition of robbery as described in section 2111 and thus it qualifies as a serious violent felony under section 3559(c)(2)(F)(i). The court additionally determined that Louisiana armed robbery is a serious violent felony under the force clause of section 3559(c)(2)(F)(ii). View "United States v. Parker" on Justia Law

After plaintiff filed suit under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) to recover long-term disability benefits from MetLife, the district court severed the coverage issue from the remaining issues. At issue in regards to coverage was whether Standard, the carrier for calendar year 2016, or MetLife, the carrier for 2017, provided coverage. The district court concluded that Standard, which had been previously dismissed, covered this claim.The Fifth Circuit reversed, concluding that the court's reading of the Standard and MetLife policies lead it to conclude that Standard provided no coverage and coverage was afforded to plaintiff under MetLife's policy. The court explained that the Standard and MetLife policies outline how to transition coverage between old and new policies, as well as provide special rules for employees who temporarily recover during a transition. In this case, the plain language of the policies make it clear that plaintiff's benefits coverage for his alleged long-term disability shifted from Standard to MetLife. Accordingly, the court remanded for further proceedings. View "Talamantes v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co." on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's revocation sentence and supervised-release conditions in a case where defendant, a serial sexual predator of children and people with disabilities, violated the conditions of his supervised release. The court concluded that, although the district court may have made a one-word misstatement regarding defendant's criminal history, any error did not prejudice defendant. The court rejected defendant's contention that the district court unlawfully delegated judicial authority in directing him to "follow the instructions of the U.S. Probation Officer." In this case, the court found no plain error. View "United States v. Tinney" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against defendant, her former Sociology teacher at a public high school in Texas, alleging that he violated her First Amendment rights by attempting to compel her to transcribe the United States Pledge of Allegiance and by retaliating against her after she refused. After the district court denied defendant's motion for summary judgment, he filed an interlocutory appeal. Plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.The Fifth Circuit granted plaintiff's motion to dismiss, concluding that defendant seeks to have the court resolve the very factual disputes that the district court found to be genuine and properly submitted for trial on the merits, which the court did not have jurisdiction to do. In this case, defendant's legal arguments are inextricably intertwined with his challenges to the facts that the district court found to be disputed. View "Oliver v. Arnold" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit certified the following question to the Supreme Court of Texas: May Amazon be held liable as a "seller" under Texas products-liability law for third-party products sold on Amazon's website and handled through Amazon's Fulfillment by Amazon program? The Supreme Court of Texas has now answered the question, holding that "potentially liable sellers are limited to those who relinquished title to the product at some point in the distribution chain." Because third-party sellers do not relinquish their title to their products, "Amazon is not a 'seller'" of those "products under Texas law." Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's conclusion that Amazon is a "seller" under Texas law with instructions to grant Amazon's motion for summary judgment in full on remand. View "McMillan v. Amazon.com" on Justia Law

On remand from the Supreme Court, the Fifth Circuit certified the following questions of law to the Supreme Court of Louisiana: 1) Whether Louisiana law recognizes a duty, under the facts alleged in the complaint, or otherwise, not to negligently precipitate the crime of a third party? 2) Assuming Mckesson could otherwise be held liable for a breach of duty owed to Officer Doe, whether Louisiana's Professional Rescuer's Doctrine bars recovery under the facts alleged in the complaint? View "Doe v. Mckesson" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. 1983 claims based on allegations that defendants illegally extradited him from Pennsylvania to Louisiana and impermissibly extended his state sentence by thirty years. Plaintiff's claims arose from a records clerk's reversion of his release date to the 2052 date, rather than the 2023 date, on the grounds that he had stopped serving his state sentence when he escaped from prison and that his state and federal sentences were intended to run consecutively.The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's sentence-based claims, but reversed and remanded with respect to the extradition-based claims. The court held that Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), does not present a jurisdictional hurdle that would require a remand of this case to state court. The court explained that Heck implicates a plaintiff's ability to state a claim, not whether the court has jurisdiction over that claim. As to plaintiff's claim regarding his sentence enhancement, the court concluded that a claim for speedier release is actionable by writ of habeas corpus, and a section 1983 damages action predicated on the sentence calculation issue is barred by Heck because success on that claim would necessarily invalidate the duration of his incarceration. The court also concluded that the district court never analyzed whether plaintiff's extradition-based claims were barred by Heck, and the district court should have considered whether his extradition-based claims survived Heck in the first instance. Furthermore, the district court should consider the qualified immunity, absolute immunity, and limitations ruling issues on remand. The court vacated in part and remanded for further proceedings. View "Colvin v. LeBlanc" on Justia Law