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

Charles and Yvette Whittier sued Ocwen Loan Servicing, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, Merscorp, and Mortgage Electronic Registration System to prevent the foreclosure of their home mortgage loan. The parties reached a settlement and notified the district court, which issued an interim order of dismissal pending final documentation. The parties then filed a Joint Stipulation to Dismiss Action under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) and a proposed Order of Dismissal With Prejudice, which stated that the court would retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement. However, the court's dismissal order did not explicitly retain jurisdiction or incorporate the settlement terms.The Whittiers later filed a motion to enforce the settlement agreement and sought attorneys' fees. The defendants argued that the court lacked ancillary jurisdiction to enforce the agreement. A magistrate judge recommended enjoining foreclosure proceedings, and the district judge adopted this recommendation, issuing an injunction in April 2020. Over two years later, PHH and Deutsche Bank moved to reopen the case and dissolve the injunction, claiming the Whittiers were in default. A different magistrate judge found that the court lacked ancillary jurisdiction to enforce the settlement and recommended dissolving the injunction. The district judge agreed, dissolved the injunction, and dismissed the suit with prejudice in May 2024, explicitly declining jurisdiction over the settlement agreement.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court held that the district court lacked ancillary jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement because the dismissal order did not expressly retain jurisdiction or incorporate the settlement terms. The court affirmed the district court's decision to dissolve the injunction and dismiss the case with prejudice. View "Whittier v. Ocwen Loan Servicing" on Justia Law

In this case, inmates at the Louisiana State Penitentiary (LSP) filed a class action lawsuit in 2015 against the warden, the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, and other officials. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to their serious medical needs, violating the Eighth Amendment, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The district court bifurcated the case into liability and remedy phases. After an eleven-day bench trial, the court found in favor of the plaintiffs on all claims. Subsequently, a ten-day trial on remedies concluded that the plaintiffs were entitled to permanent injunctive relief, but the court did not specify the relief in its judgment.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana entered a "Judgment" in favor of the plaintiffs and a "Remedial Order" outlining the appointment of special masters to develop remedial plans. The defendants appealed, arguing that the district court's judgment and remedial order were final and appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 or, alternatively, under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and concluded that the district court had not entered a final decision appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, nor had it entered an injunction appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). The appellate court determined that the district court's actions were not final because they contemplated further proceedings, including the appointment of special masters and the development of remedial plans. Consequently, the Fifth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and vacated the stay of the remedial order. View "Parker v. Hooper" on Justia Law

Peter Mosoko Ikome, a native and citizen of Cameroon, entered the United States in 1989 as a nonimmigrant visitor but overstayed his visa. Over the years, he engaged in various proceedings with U.S. immigration authorities regarding his status and removability. Ikome married a U.S. citizen in 1992, who filed an I-130 petition for him, but they divorced in 1998 before the petition was adjudicated. In 1991, Ikome was arrested for rape and later pled guilty to attempted rape and attempted sexual assault. His convictions were overturned in 2002, and his deportation proceedings were terminated in 2006. He was again charged with removability in 2009 and conceded removability in 2011. He married another U.S. citizen, Melissa Senior, who filed an I-130 petition for him, which was approved in 2014. However, due to marital issues, Ikome's daughter filed an I-130 petition for him in 2019.The Immigration Judge (IJ) denied Ikome's motion for a continuance to allow for the adjudication of his daughter's I-130 petition, citing a lack of good cause. The IJ also denied his application for cancellation of removal, finding that he did not demonstrate that his children would suffer "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship" if he were removed. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ's decisions and denied Ikome's motion to remand the case to the IJ to pursue adjustment of status based on his daughter's approved I-130 petition, citing a lack of due diligence.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the BIA's affirmance of the IJ's denial of Ikome's motion for a continuance, as such determinations are discretionary and not subject to judicial review. The court also found that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Ikome's motion to remand, as he failed to show due diligence in pursuing adjustment of status through his daughter's petition. Consequently, the court dismissed Ikome's petition in part and denied it in part. View "Ikome v. Bondi" on Justia Law

In 2016, the DOJ sued Hinds County, Mississippi, under the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act, alleging unconstitutional conditions in the county's detention facilities. A consent decree was established to address these issues, but disputes over compliance led to ongoing litigation. The DOJ claimed the county failed to comply, citing worsening conditions, while the county sought to terminate the decree. The district court found partial compliance, held the county in contempt, and issued a new injunction focusing on the Raymond Detention Center (RDC). As a sanction, the court appointed a receiver to oversee compliance.The district court's decision was based on findings of ongoing constitutional violations at RDC, including inmate violence, inadequate staffing, and poor conditions. The court noted that despite some improvements, many issues persisted, such as severe understaffing and inadequate supervision, contributing to violence and unsafe conditions. The court also found deficiencies in use-of-force training, incident reporting, and investigations, which exacerbated the problems.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's decision to retain the new injunction, finding that ongoing constitutional violations justified continued prospective relief. However, the appeals court found the new injunction overly broad in some respects and held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in appointing a receiver. The court also noted that the district court failed to make sufficient need-narrowness-intrusiveness findings for each of the receiver's duties as required under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Consequently, the appeals court affirmed the district court's decision in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings to address these issues. View "United States v. Hinds County Board of Supervisors" on Justia Law

Sterling Senechal submitted a claim to Allstate Vehicle and Property Insurance Company for water damage caused by a broken water heater. Allstate issued three payments totaling $12,410.48. After a dispute over the loss amount, an appraisal determined the actual cash value to be $58,396.58, which Allstate paid minus the deductible and prior payments. Senechal then filed a lawsuit alleging breach of contract, violations of the Texas Prompt Payment of Claims Act (TPPCA), bad faith claims under Chapter 541 of the Texas Insurance Code, and breach of the common law duty of good faith and fair dealing. Allstate removed the case to federal court and paid what it calculated as the maximum potential interest owed.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas granted summary judgment in favor of Allstate on all claims. Senechal conceded the breach of contract claim but opposed summary judgment on the other claims. The district court ruled that Allstate's payment of the appraisal award and interest defeated Senechal's claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the summary judgment on Senechal's bad faith claims under Chapter 541 and common law, citing the Texas Supreme Court's decision in Ortiz v. State Farm Lloyds, which held that payment of an appraisal award and interest precludes recovery for bad faith claims unless there is an independent injury. However, the court vacated the summary judgment on Senechal's TPPCA claims, noting that payment of an appraisal award and interest does not automatically absolve an insurer of TPPCA liability. The case was remanded for further proceedings to determine whether Allstate's initial payment "roughly corresponds" with the appraisal award and whether Allstate is liable under the TPPCA. View "Senechal v. Allstate" on Justia Law

Carlos Ray Kidd was convicted in federal court in 2007 for sending threatening communications and was sentenced to 60 months’ imprisonment. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit remanded the case for resentencing due to a miscalculation of the Sentencing Guidelines range. However, the resentencing hearing did not occur, and neither the Government nor Kidd’s counsel alerted the district court. Kidd continued to serve unrelated state sentences, believing his 2007 federal sentence was valid. In 2023, Kidd’s attorney discovered the oversight, and the resentencing hearing finally took place.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas initially sentenced Kidd to 60 months in 2007. After the remand, the district court failed to resentence Kidd, and he remained in state custody. In 2023, the district court resentenced Kidd to 60 months, denying his motion to dismiss the charges for denial of due process. The court found no prejudice resulted from the delay since Kidd was serving other sentences. Kidd appealed, arguing the delay violated his due process rights and that the district court erred in imposing the new sentence.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the sixteen-year delay in resentencing did not violate Kidd’s due process rights because he suffered no prejudice from the delay. Kidd was continuously imprisoned for other sentences, and his federal sentence remained the same. The court also found that the district court did not err in denying the offense level reduction for acceptance of responsibility and that the 60-month sentence was substantively reasonable. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "USA v. Kidd" on Justia Law

Jennifer Virden, a small business owner in Austin, Texas, ran for city council in 2020 and for mayor in 2022. The City of Austin has a regulation that prohibits candidates from fundraising outside a one-year period before the general election. Virden announced her candidacy for the 2022 election in March 2021, which was seven months before she could start fundraising under the ordinance. She filed a lawsuit challenging the one-year fundraising window as unconstitutional under the First Amendment.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas initially denied Virden's request for a preliminary injunction, finding no irreparable harm. Virden's interlocutory appeal was dismissed as moot after the fundraising window opened. The district court later granted summary judgment in part, ruling that the one-year fundraising window was unconstitutional and awarding nominal damages to Virden and her donor, William Clark. The court found that the claims for declaratory and injunctive relief were moot since the 2022 election had ended and there were no concrete plans for future campaigns. The court also refused to consider evidence regarding Virden's desire to contribute to another candidate in the 2024 election, deeming the submission untimely.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's ruling that the one-year fundraising window was unconstitutional, agreeing that it violated the First Amendment. The court also upheld the award of nominal damages to Virden and Clark. Additionally, the court found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to consider the late evidence regarding the 2024 election. The Fifth Circuit concluded that the suit was timely, Virden had standing, and the city's arguments were without merit. The court affirmed the district court's decision in its entirety. View "Virden v. City of Austin" on Justia Law

Following public outcry over "Pride Month" displays in St. Tammany Parish's public libraries, the Parish Council passed a resolution that vacated the terms of the Library Board of Control members, staggered those terms in accordance with Louisiana law, and appointed new Board members. Three ousted Board members—Anthony Parr, Rebecca Taylor, and William McHugh, III—sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, asserting viewpoint-discrimination, free-speech, retaliation, and substantive-due-process claims against the Council and Councilman David Cougle. They sought declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent the resolution from taking effect.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana ruled that the legislative privilege was inapplicable because the resolution was not "legislative" in nature. Defendants brought an interlocutory appeal challenging this ruling. Before addressing the legislative privilege issue, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit examined whether the plaintiffs had standing to bring their claims.The Fifth Circuit concluded that the plaintiffs lacked standing. The court found that the plaintiffs' alleged speech-related injuries were not particularized, as they were tied to their positions as Board members and affected all members equally. Additionally, the court determined that the plaintiffs' alleged reputational injuries were neither fairly traceable to the defendants' conduct nor redressable by a favorable decision. Consequently, the court vacated the district court's order and remanded with instructions to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. View "Parr v. Cougle" on Justia Law

Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Company (Great Lakes) sought a letter ruling from the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) regarding the application of the Jones Act to its offshore wind farm project. CBP's initial ruling required Jones Act-qualified vessels for transporting scour protection rock from U.S. points to the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). However, a modified ruling stated that the first delivery of rock to the OCS did not require a Jones Act-qualified vessel, but subsequent deliveries did. Great Lakes appealed this modified ruling, which CBP denied.Great Lakes then filed a lawsuit in the Southern District of Texas, claiming the modified ruling was contrary to law and would expose its planned Jones Act-compliant vessel to unlawful competition. The American Petroleum Institute (API) intervened, arguing that Great Lakes lacked standing as it had no actual or imminent injury. The district court agreed with API and dismissed the case, finding Great Lakes' injury hypothetical since it did not have a vessel capable of handling the Vineyard Project and no current contract for the project.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. Great Lakes argued it had competitor standing due to the potential for increased competition from foreign vessels. However, the court found no evidence of actual or imminent increased competition, as the Vineyard Project was completed and there was no indication that future projects would source rock from U.S. points. The court also rejected CBP's argument that the ruling applied to identical future projects, as there was no record evidence of such projects involving U.S.-sourced rock.The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment, concluding that Great Lakes lacked standing to challenge the CBP's modified ruling. View "Great Lakes Dredge v. Magnus" on Justia Law

Arturo Garza, Jr. pleaded guilty to possessing a firearm as a felon and was initially sentenced to 75 months imprisonment by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. Garza appealed, arguing that the district court erred in applying a four-level sentencing enhancement for possessing a firearm in connection with another felony offense and an elevated base offense level for possessing the firearm near a large-capacity magazine. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit agreed with Garza, vacated his sentence, and remanded the case for resentencing.Upon remand, the district court removed the enhancement and held an evidentiary hearing, which confirmed the compatibility of the firearm and magazine, thus applying the elevated base offense level. On the day of the hearing, the district court also learned of additional criminal convictions against Garza since his original sentencing, which increased his criminal history score and raised his Guidelines range. Garza objected, arguing that considering these intervening sentences violated the Sentencing Guidelines and exceeded the scope of the appellate court's mandate. The district court disagreed and sentenced Garza to 87 months imprisonment, later reducing it to 75 months to account for time already served.Garza appealed again, contending that the district court misinterpreted U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1 and violated the mandate rule. The Fifth Circuit reviewed these claims de novo and found no error. The court held that § 4A1.1 includes sentences imposed prior to resentencing and that the district court did not exceed the mandate, as the intervening sentences were not present during the original appeal. The court also rejected Garza's invocation of the rule of lenity, affirming the district court's decision. View "United States v. Garza" on Justia Law