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

Plaintiff filed suit against CBP and others, alleging constitutional violations after his truck and its contents were seized at the United States-Mexico border. The district court granted defendants' motions to dismiss and denied as moot plaintiff's motion to certify the class.Given the broad allegations in the complaint and the court's balancing of the Mathews factors, the Fifth Circuit held that plaintiff has failed to state a claim for a procedural due process violation. In this case, plaintiff has not sufficiently alleged the constitutional inadequacy of the existing procedures, nor has he shown that the available processes are unavailable or patently inadequate. Furthermore, the court's conclusion that the additional process plaintiff seeks is not constitutionally required in this context is consistent with United States v. Von Neumann, 474 U.S. 242, 250 (1986). The court also held that the district court did not plainly err in holding that plaintiff failed to state a claim that the bond requirement violates due process. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) of plaintiff's due process class claims for failure to state a claim, and affirmed the denial of his motion for class certification as moot. Finally, the court rejected plaintiff's Bivens claim where plaintiff failed to set forth any facts specifically identifying what Defendant Espinoza or any unnamed Customs officers did to violate his rights. View "Serrano v. Customs and Border Patrol" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a former medical school professor at the University of North Texas Health Science Center, filed suit against various professors and school administrators under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that they violated his Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process rights. Defendants voted to recommend firing plaintiff after conducting a hearing to address a student's sexual harassment claim against him.The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of qualified immunity and rendered judgment in favor of defendants, holding that plaintiff's deprivations of due process were not clearly established constitutional rights. In this case, the court found no merit in plaintiff's claim that one of the defendants was not impartial because the defendant knew the accuser in a university proceeding, and concluded that this was not enough to establish a due process claim of bias. The court also held that, although the Committee should have heard the accuser's testimony, it was not clearly established at the time that, in university disciplinary hearings where the outcome depends on credibility, the Due Process Clause demands the opportunity to confront witnesses or some reasonable alternative. Therefore, the district court erred in denying defendants' motion for summary judgment. View "Walsh v. Hodge" on Justia Law

After a panel of arbitrators issued an arbitration award dismissing all of plaintiff's claims against Ameriprise and three of its franchise advisors, plaintiff then filed a petition in Louisiana state court to vacate that arbitration award, as to certain defendant parties. Defendants removed to state court; plaintiff moved to remand; and the district court held that it did have subject-matter jurisdiction over the petition to vacate and thus denied remand. The district court ruled on the removed petition to vacate, denying plaintiff's claims with prejudice. At issue in this appeal is the jurisdiction of the federal court over the petition to vacate.The Fifth Circuit affirmed and held that, applying the look-through analysis, the district court correctly found that the federal claim against Ameriprise in the FINRA arbitration proceeding meant that there was federal subject-matter jurisdiction over the removed petition to vacate the FINRA arbitration dismissal award. Therefore, the district court correctly denied plaintiff's motion to remand the action to vacate to Louisiana state court. View "Badgerow v. Walters" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit denied petitions for review of the BIA's dismissal of petitioner's appeal of the IJ's denial of asylum. The court held that the evidence does not compel a reasonable factfinder to conclude that petitioner has demonstrated he was persecuted in the People's Republic of China because of his political opinion.The court held that it has no authority to review the Board's decision declining to address the IJ's determinations of a lack of credibility and of corroborative evidence. The court also held that a reasonable factfinder would not be compelled to conclude that petitioner was persecuted for political rather than personal reasons, and thus he has not met his burden for his asylum petition. View "Changsheng Du v. Barr" on Justia Law

OOGC filed suit to vacate two arbitration awards favoring Chesapeake on the basis of an arbitrator's failure to disclose connections with certain non-parties. The Fifth Circuit vacated the district court's decision to vacate the awards and remanded with instructions to confirm the arbitration awards within thirty days of the issuance of the mandate. The court held that the district court erred by vacating the arbitration awards for "evident partiality" under 9 U.S.C. 10(a)(2). Furthermore, resolving all doubts or uncertainties in favor of upholding the awards, the court held that OOGC has not shown an adequate basis for vacatur under 9 U.S.C. 10(a)(4) and rejected OOGC's argument that the arbitrator exceeded his powers here.The court affirmed the district court's denial of the arbitrator's motion to intervene because the district court was without jurisdiction to rule upon the intervention motion once the plaintiff had filed his notice of appeal. Because the court vacated the district court's decision, the court denied the arbitrator's motion to intervene as moot. View "OOGC America, LLC v. Chesapeake Exploration, LLC" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit denied the petition for panel rehearing and withdrew its prior panel opinion, substituting the following opinion.Defendant was convicted of conspiracy to distribute cocaine base and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. The court held that defendant was not entitled to an evidentiary Franks hearing and the district court correctly denied defendant's motion to suppress. In this case, even excising the alleged falsehoods and omissions, the Article III wiretap affidavit still included many other facts that incriminated defendant, giving rise to probable cause. The court also held that the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's drug conspiracy conviction. Finally, the court upheld the district court's imposition of two sentencing enhancements for possessing a firearm in furtherance of drug distribution and defining defendant as a career offender under the Armed Career Criminal Act. View "United States v. Kendrick" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against her former employer, REJ, alleging claims of hostile work environment, gender discrimination, disparate pay, Title VII and Louisiana Employment Discrimination Law retaliation, 42 U.S.C. 1985 conspiracy, and breach of contract.The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment on plaintiff's disparate pay, hostile work environment, and breach of contract claims. The court also affirmed the district court's denial of attorney's fees. However, the court held that plaintiff has satisfied her burden under the McDonnell Douglas framework to show that whether her termination was pretext for unlawful retaliation remains a disputed issue of fact that must be determined by the appropriate fact finder. Therefore, the court reversed and vacated the district court's grant of summary judgment on plaintiff's Title VII retaliation claim. View "Badgerow v. REJ Properties, Inc." on Justia Law

After two barge towboats collided on the Mississippi River, the district court found the captains of both vessels negligent to varying degrees. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's apportionment of fault, rejecting Marquette's argument that the district court misinterpreted Inland Navigational Rule 14(d) when it held that the VANPORT was under no duty to propose the manner of passage. Because Marquette's arguments regarding Rules 5 through 8 flow from the district court's putative misreading of Rule 14(d), the court rejected these arguments too. Furthermore, the district court's holdings regarding Rules 5 through 8 were made alternatively to its determinations on ordinary negligence. The court further held that the district court did not err in assigning the VANPORT 30 percent of the liability for the collision. Finally, the court remanded to the district court to consider whether prejudgment interest is proper and, if so, in what amount. View "Deloach Marine Services LLC v. Marquette Transportation Co., LLC" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for interference with interstate commerce by robbery, in violation of the Hobbs Act. The court held that the district court had a sufficient factual basis for accepting the guilty plea and thus the district court committed no error, plain or otherwise. In this case, the entire record unmistakably demonstrates that defendant participated in the June 6 robbery with the intent to obtain controlled substances. The court also held that there is no error, much less plain error, in the district court's acceptance of defendant's guilty plea. The district court explained the maximum punishment, the elements of the Hobbs Act charge, the evidence proving a violation of the Hobbs Act, defendant's trial rights, and the consequences of a guilty plea. View "United States v. Avalos-Sanchez" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for two counts of felony possession of a firearm. Defendant was sentenced to the minimum fifteen years required by the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), based on his prior Louisiana conviction of simple burglary of an inhabited dwelling.The court held that, although the district court committed a Rehaif error, defendant is not entitled to relief because he has not shown a reasonable probability that, but for the error, he would not have entered the plea. Therefore, defendant has not shown that the district court's error affected his substantial rights. The court also held that Louisiana simple burglary of an inhabited dwelling is not broader than generic burglary. Accordingly, defendant's conviction for Louisiana simple burglary of an inhabited dwelling qualified as a predicate offense subjecting defendant to the enhancement under the ACCA. View "United States v. Montgomery" on Justia Law