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

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) dismissal of plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. 1983 claims. Plaintiff's claims stemmed from his arrest for aggravated sexual assault where the district attorney's officer subsequently dismissed the case based on lack of probable cause to believe that plaintiff committed the offense.The court concluded that the district court did not err by dismissing plaintiff's constitutional claims for false arrest where the arrest was reasonable and established no constitutional violation; for malicious prosecution because he abandoned this claim on appeal and, to the extent that he does not concede the issue, there is no freestanding right under the Constitution to be free from malicious prosecution; and for equal protection where plaintiff failed to allege that he was treated differently than persons similarly situated to him and that the treatment stemmed from discriminatory intent. Furthermore, the district court did not err by dismissing the claim for failure to train where plaintiff has not plausibly alleged that the City's training practices were inadequate or that the City was deliberately indifferent to plaintiff's rights. The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff's fourth request for leave to amend, and did not err by sua sponte dismissing plaintiff's constitutional claims against the officer. View "Anokwuru v. City of Houston" on Justia Law

After plaintiff agreed to arbitrate employment disputes with her former employer, Michaels, the arbitrator ruled against her. Plaintiff then tried to sue Michaels in federal court, challenging the same termination on a different theory: that it amounted to discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII. A new arbitrator ruled that res judicata barred the Title VII claims because they arose from the same transaction at issue in her first arbitration.The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's confirmation of the arbitration order. The court explained that the district court correctly recognized some murkiness in the circuit's manifest-disregard caselaw. The court emphasized that manifest disregard of the law as an independent, nonstatutory ground for setting aside an award must be abandoned and rejected. See Citigroup Glob. Mkts., Inc. v. Bacon, 562 F.3d 349, 358 (5th Cir. 2009). The court concluded that Citigroup Global is still binding precedent and resolves this case. In this case, plaintiff relies on manifest disregard as a freestanding ground for vacatur, untethered to any of the Federal Arbitration Act's (FAA) four grounds for vacatur. Because plaintiff does not invoke any statutory ground for vacatur, her appeal cannot overcome the court's instruction that "arbitration awards under the FAA may be vacated only for reasons provided in 9 U.S.C. 10." View "Jones v. Michaels Stores, Inc." on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress after defendant pleaded guilty pursuant to a conditional plea agreement to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 50 kilograms or more of marijuana.The court concluded that the totality of the circumstances support a finding that the law enforcement agent had reasonable suspicion to justify stopping defendant's vehicle. In this case, the agent noticed irregularities with the vehicle where the seal on the trailer was likely incompatible with a scan that seemingly showed a small amount of personal equipment inside, and Vehicle and Cargo Inspection System images of the trailer were consistent with images of bundles of narcotics. The court also concluded that defendant was not subject to custodial interrogation and thus he was not entitled to Miranda warnings. Finally, defendant concedes that his argument, that Border Patrol agents lack authority to conduct investigative stops solely related to non-immigration offenses, is foreclosed under Fifth Circuit precedent. View "United States v. Nelson" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit withdrew its prior opinion and substituted the following opinion.The court affirmed Defendants Fackrell and Cramer's convictions and death sentences for killing a fellow prison inmate. The court found no error in the district court's denial of defendants' motions to sever; there was no error, much less plain error, in the finding of the requisite mental states under 18 U.S.C. 3591(a)(2); claims of prosecutorial misconduct rejected; any error in the Government's statements that referred to mitigating evidence was harmless; any error stemming from the Government's statements regarding justice for the victim did not affect Fackrell's substantial rights; the Government's use of rebuttal testimony of BOP psychologists did not violate Fackrell's right against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment, Sixth Amendment right to counsel, and the psychotherapist-patient privilege; the use of mental health rebuttal witnesses did not violate Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12.2 and the Fifth and Sixth Amendments; the district court did not err in denying evidence from the victim's family's civil suit as irrelevant and likely to confuse the jury; the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding evidence related to another murder; and there was no error in the Government's mention of Cramer's charge for the 2012 assault.The court rejected Fackrell's challenge to the district court's decision to reject the categorical approach. The court explained that, even assuming that the categorical approach applies and thus the 18 U.S.C. 3592(c)(2) and (c)(4) aggravators were invalid, the sentence can be affirmed if it would have been imposed without the invalid aggravators. Finally, the court rejected Fackrell's Hobbs Act claim; rejected challenges to the district court's penalty-phase jury instructions on mitigating evidence; concluded that the district court did not impermissibly marshal the evidence; upheld the district court's supplemental jury instruction to the sentencing jury; rejected defendants' challenge to the sufficiency of the record on appeal; and rejected claims of cumulative errors. View "United States v. Fackrell" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed Defendants Fackrell and Cramer's convictions and death sentences for killing a fellow prison inmate. The court found no error in the district court's denial of defendants' motions to sever; there was no error, much less plain error, in the finding of the requisite mental states under 18 U.S.C. 3591(a)(2); claims of prosecutorial misconduct rejected; any error in the Government's statements that referred to mitigating evidence was harmless; any error stemming from the Government's statements regarding justice for the victim did not affect Fackrell's substantial rights; the Government's use of rebuttal testimony of BOP psychologists did not violate Fackrell's right against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment, Sixth Amendment right to counsel, and the psychotherapist-patient privilege; the use of mental health rebuttal witnesses did not violate Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12.2 and the Fifth and Sixth Amendments; the district court did not err in denying evidence from the victim's family's civil suit as irrelevant and likely to confuse the jury; the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding evidence related to another murder; and there was no error in the Government's mention of Cramer's charge for the 2012 assault.The court rejected Fackrell's challenge to the district court's decision to reject the categorical approach. The court explained that, even assuming that the categorical approach applies and thus the 18 U.S.C. 3592(c)(2) and (c)(4) aggravators were invalid, the sentence can be affirmed if it would have been imposed without the invalid aggravators. Finally, the court rejected Fackrell's Hobbs Act claim; rejected challenges to the district court's penalty-phase jury instructions on mitigating evidence; concluded that the district court did not impermissibly marshal the evidence; upheld the district court's supplemental jury instruction to the sentencing jury; rejected defendants' challenge to the sufficiency of the record on appeal; and rejected claims of cumulative errors. View "United States v. Fackrell" on Justia Law

Plaintiff treated children in the pediatric intensive care unit of a hospital owned by VHS under his professional services agreement with PICCS, which itself operated under a separate coverage agreement with VHS. After PICCS terminated plaintiff, he filed suit alleging claims of race discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. 1981. The district court granted summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's claims against VHS.The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's partial final judgment, concluding that plaintiff's Title VII claim fails for lack of an employment relationship with VHS under either integrated-enterprise or joint-employment theories. The court also concluded that plaintiff's section 1981 claim fails because he cannot identify an impaired contractual right enforceable against VHS. In this case, plaintiff failed to show any contractual right enforceable against VHS under his physician agreement. View "Perry v. VHS San Antonio Partners, LLC" on Justia Law

There is no conflict between the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and the Bail Reform Act (BRA) that prevents DHS from civilly detaining a criminal defendant after she has been granted pretrial release pursuant to the BRA.As a preliminary matter, the Fifth Circuit held that the district court's December order is appealable under the BRA, 18 U.S.C. 3145 and 3731. The court explained that the September release order released defendant from criminal detention under the BRA and, considered by itself, the court would lack jurisdiction over the September release order because it was issued by a magistrate judge and not a district court. However, the December order was the district court's affirmation of the September release order in response to defendant's motion to clarify her release status.On the merits, the court concluded that the district court correctly rejected the applicability of 8 U.S.C. 1226(e) and 1252(g) in its December order, explaining it was "not attempting to review or set aside any decision or action to commence removal proceedings" but was instead "attempting to enforce the Magistrate Judge's [September release] Order." The court considered decisions by six other circuits that have addressed the issue and concluded that pretrial release under the BRA does not preclude pre-removal detention under the INA. The court explained that, fundamentally, the BRA and INA concern separate grants of Executive authority and govern independent criminal and civil proceedings. The court concluded that the remaining claims lacked merit and vacated the district court's December order precluding ICE from detaining defendant pending completion of her criminal proceedings. View "United States v. Baltazar-Sebastian" on Justia Law

Hall filed various contract, statutory, and common-law claims against Old Republic in federal district court for failing to indemnify Hall under its title insurance policies. The district court concluded that, although the unpaid Penta pre-policy-date work is a defect under Covered Risk 2 and an encumbrance under Covered Risk 10, coverage is precluded by Exclusions 3(a) and 3(d), which bar claims for liens and work performed after the policy date. The district court found that Hall had not raised a genuine dispute of material fact that Penta's liens were for unpaid work before the policy date, and granted Old Republic's motion for summary judgment and denied Hall's motion for partial summary judgment.The Fifth Circuit concluded that the insuring clauses do not cover Hall's Penta lien losses. The court explained that any doubt about whether Covered Risks 2 and 10 could possibly be read to cover the Penta lien losses at issue here is removed by the fact that the parties also signed standard ALTA Form 32-06. In so doing, the parties specifically contracted to eliminate one coverage provision of the standard-form insurance policy—Covered Risk 11(a). Even assuming arguendo that the 32-06 endorsements and the Covered Risks conflict or result in an ambiguity about whether the Penta lien losses are covered, the court explained that it is the more general provisions that suggest that there may be coverage (under Hall's theory), while the more specific provisions instruct that there is no such coverage. Under basic principles of contract interpretation, the specific controls the general. Therefore, the court need not review the district court's conclusions regarding Exclusions 3(a) and 3(d) to affirm the judgment.The court also affirmed the district court's grant of Old Republic's motion for summary judgment on Hall's bad-faith and Texas Insurance Code claims. The court explained that, because Hall is not entitled to indemnification for the Penta lien losses, Hall cannot show that Old Republic acted in bad faith in denying its claim. Furthermore, because Hall alleges no other harm apart from the Penta lien losses, Hall cannot demonstrate that Old Republic caused it any harm in violating the Texas Insurance Code—assuming arguendo that the Texas Insurance Code applies, and that Old Republic ran afoul of its provisions. Finally, the court affirmed the district court's grant of Old Republic's motion for summary judgment on Hall's independent-counsel (or duty-to-defend) claim. View "Hall CA-NV, LLC v. Old Republic National Title Insurance Co." on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit denied petitions for review of the Service's incidental take statement and biological opinion in connection with the construction and operation of a liquefied natural gas terminal in south Texas (the Annova project). The court held that the Service complied with its obligations under the Endangered Species Act in authorizing the harm or harassment of one ocelot or jaguarundi and in determining that the proposed project was not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of either cat.In this case, the incidental take statement is not arbitrary and capricious because it clearly specifies the anticipated take and specifies the amount or extent of the anticipated take. Furthermore, the reinitiation trigger is clear and enforceable. Finally, the failure to include the reasonable and prudent measures word-for-word in the terms and conditions does not render the incidental take statement arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law. The court explained that the no-jeopardy conclusion is not arbitrary and capricious where the Service's conclusion was reached after evaluating both the direct and indirect effects of an action on the cats. The court rejected petitioners' challenge to the opinion's mitigation measures, namely the conservation of acreage, as arbitrary and capricious. View "Sierra Club v. Department of Interior" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit denied petitions for review of the Service's incidental take statement and biological opinion in connection with the construction and operation of a liquefied natural gas terminal in south Texas (the Rio Grande project). The court held that the Service complied with its obligations under the Endangered Species Act in authorizing the harm or harassment of one ocelot or jaguarundi and in determining that the proposed project was not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of either cat.In this case, the incidental take statement is not arbitrary and capricious because it clearly specifies the anticipated take and specifies the amount or extent of the anticipated take. Furthermore, the reinitiation trigger is clear and enforceable. Finally, the failure to include the reasonable and prudent measures word-for-word in the terms and conditions does not render the incidental take statement arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law. The court explained that the no-jeopardy conclusion is not arbitrary and capricious where the Service's conclusion was reached after evaluating both the direct and indirect effects of an action on the cats. View "Sierra Club v. Department of Interior" on Justia Law