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

Plaintiff sued two Texas state officials, asserting that they violated his right to procedural due process when they notified him that he was required to register as a sex offender under Texas law. After a bench trial, the district court entered judgment in Plaintiff’s favor.   The Fifth Circuit vacated and remanded. The court concluded that Plaintiff’s suit is barred by sovereign immunity. The court explained that Sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment precludes suits by private citizens against states in federal court. This bar extends not only to the state itself, but also to claims against “state officials” in their official capacity when the state is the real party in interest. The court explained that here, Plaintiff is suing state officials who have not waived sovereign immunity. Accordingly, his claims are barred in federal court unless an exception to sovereign immunity applies. Moreover, the court explained that because the district court’s order invalidated a federal statute—instead of affirming it—invoking the exception here would not advance Ex parte Young’s aim of “promoting the vindication of federal rights.” View "Tawakkol v. Vasquez" on Justia Law

Louisiana challenged the district court’s grant of habeas relief to an inmate who had been convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death in 2009. The district court held that the ineffective assistance of trial counsel prejudiced the defense. The State argued that the district court applied the incorrect standard of review under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 and that the district court improperly granted habeas relief due to ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984).   The Fifth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that in reviewing an ineffectiveness claim, the court must weigh the evidence that was unaffected by the alleged error, along with the evidence that was affected by the error and the degree to which it was affected, and then assess whether the petitioner “has met the burden of showing that the decision reached would reasonably likely have been different absent the errors.”   Here, the State argued that because a jury might have found that Petitioner shot at law enforcement vehicles during the police chase, it would have imputed specific intent to kill the victim. The court wrote that it agreed with Petitioner that this theory is not supported by Louisiana law. Further, the court explained that the three key pieces of evidence, at the very least, create a “reasonable probability that, absent the errors, the factfinder would have had a reasonable doubt respecting guilt.” Accordingly, the court concluded that Petitioner has carried his burden of proving there is a reasonable probability that his convictions and death sentence were prejudiced as a result of his counsel’s deficient performance. View "Neal v. Vannoy" on Justia Law

Defendant was indicted for knowingly possessing “material”— a cell phone—that contained child pornography. Even though the phone had thousands of such images, the indictment specifically described only four. Defendant pleaded guilty under a plea agreement. After sentencing, the district court ordered Defendant to pay restitution to several individual victims whose likenesses appeared in some images from Defendant’s phone. But these images were among those that the indictment did not specifically describe. Defendant argued that restitution is available only to victims who appeared in the four images specified in the indictment.   The Fifth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that the indictment charged Defendant with a crime, but Defendant has identified no rule or statute that would require the indictment to also include descriptions of all the images or all the victims. The court explained that, on the contrary, the indictment tracks the statute’s language: “Specifically, Defendant possessed one Motorola Moto G Stylus android cellular phone that contained the following described image files visually depicting a prepubescent minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct . . . .” The object of the possession in the indictment is clearly the “Motorola Moto G Stylus,” not any of the images. The court wrote that the statute criminalizes possession of material containing child pornography. The phone was that “material,” no matter whether it contained one image or twenty thousand. Thus, the court concluded that there was no error with the district court’s finding and amount of restitution. View "USA v. Bopp" on Justia Law

For decades, a facility has allegedly emitted dangerous levels of a chemical called Ethylene Oxide (“EtO”). The dangerous properties of the chemical were not widely known outside the scientific community, so it was not until a local law firm began advertising potential lawsuits. Fourteen plaintiffs eventually sued. The case was severed, and the instant case is the first to reach the court. The district court granted Shell’s and Evonik’s motions to dismiss. The court concluded that all claims predicated on Plaintiff’s wife’s death were time-barred and that Plaintiff had not properly pleaded damages for the claims based on his own fear of cancer. Plaintiff appealed.   The Fifth Circuit affirmed the finding of improper joinder. The court reversed and remanded Plaintiff’s claims predicated on his wife’s death. The court vacated the denial of leave to amend the claims predicated on Jack’s emotional injuries, as pleaded against Evonik. The court explained that Plaintiff, who had no connections to the plant, had lived in the same small town all his life, was computer illiterate, and had no medical training, could not be expected to hunt down answers to a problem when there was absolutely no suggestion, at the time of the diagnosis, that any out-of-the-ordinary problem existed. Thus the court reversed and remanded this claim to the district court for further factual development as to when Plaintiff reasonably could have discovered the allegedly tortious cause of his wife’s diagnosis and death. View "Jack v. Evonik Corporation" on Justia Law

Defendant was one of Pizza Hut L.L.C.’s largest franchisees in Pennsylvania, operating 43 restaurants there (plus one in Connecticut). Ultimately, though, Defendant failed to fulfill his contractual obligations, so Pizza Hut terminated the parties’ various franchise agreements. Hoping to keep the restaurants open, Pizza Hut entered into two post-termination agreements with Defendant for him to continue operating the restaurants while the parties tried to find a buyer. The first agreement was unsuccessful. The second ended in this litigation. After several rounds of pleading, Defendant demanded a jury trial. Pizza Hut moved to strike the request under the second post-termination agreement’s bilateral jury waiver. The district court enforced the waiver, and the case continued to a bench trial in which Pizza Hut prevailed. The only issue on appeal is whether the district court erred in striking Defendant’s jury demand.   The Fifth Circuit affirmed. The Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial is unassailable but not unwaivable. Courts have long honored parties’ agreements to waive the jury right if the waiver is knowing and voluntary. The court explained that it follows its sister circuits in holding that general allegations of fraud do not render contractual jury waivers unknowing and involuntary unless those claims are directed at the waiver provision specifically. Because Defendant failed to show that the jury waiver was unknowing and involuntary. View "Pizza Hut v. Pandya" on Justia Law

The Jefferson Parish School Board (JPSB) separately suspended two students for individually having a BB gun visible during virtual school. Each student’s family sued the school board, in part seeking a declaration that the school board’s virtual learning disciplinary policy is unconstitutional. Louisiana intervened, agreeing with the families on the constitutionality of JPSB’s policy and separately challenging JPSB’s disciplinary actions as ultra vires. JPSB settled with the families, ending the private suits. Louisiana wants to continue the case, citing its broad interest in compliance with its laws. The question before us is whether Louisiana has standing to do so. This case lies outside the limits of Article III standing. States undoubtedly have an interest in enforcing their laws. But when it comes to federal courts, Louisiana must claim an injury to a traditional, sovereign interest to invoke Article III jurisdiction. The state similarly fails to establish an injury to an established quasi-sovereign interest sufficient to show parens patriae standing. Louisiana’s claim of injury to a proprietary interest also falls short.   The Fifth Circuit remanded to the district court. The court concluded that t Louisiana does not have Article III standing. The court explained that this case is the same “(non) controversy” that the Sixth and Seventh Circuits have held falls outside of our Article III power. The court explained that federal courts do not sit to resolve intramural disputes among state officials over the bounds of their authority under state law. Louisiana stands fully capable and ready to enforce its laws, and it can do so in its courts, which “are not bound to adhere” to Article III’s requirements. View "LA State v. Jefferson Parish Sch" on Justia Law

Defendants, game wardens with the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, appealed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity as to Plaintiff’s Section 1983 claims against them.   The Fifth Circuit reversed and rendered judgment for Defendants. The court concluded that Plaintiff has not plausibly alleged that Defendant violated his constitutional rights. The court explained that because Plaintiff does not allege that Defendants knowingly withheld relevant, material information from the grand jury, he has not shown that the independent intermediary’s deliberations or decisions were tainted. Accordingly, the independent-intermediary doctrine defeats Plaintiff’s allegations that there was no probable cause to prosecute him and insulates Defendants from liability. The court wrote that this conclusion applies with equal force to Plaintiff’s claims for both retaliatory prosecution and prosecution without probable cause. View "Trevino v. Iden" on Justia Law

The property owners (doing business as Re-Mart Investment), and St. Maron Properties— brought Section 1983 claims against the City under the Takings Clause, the Due Process Clause, and the Equal Protection Clause, as well as state law tort and statutory claims. The district court dismissed the state law claims as barred by sovereign immunity. It also dismissed the Section 1983 claims under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to satisfy the requirements for municipal liability under Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978).   The Fifth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the state law claims. But reversed the dismissal of the Section 1983 claims. The court explained that under Monell, a Section 1983 plaintiff may not proceed against a municipality unless the injury was caused by an official policy of the municipality. But here, the property owners allege that city officials violated their rights at the specific direction of the Mayor and the City Council. That is enough to establish liability under Monell. Accordingly, the court held that the property owners are entitled to proceed against the City on their federal claims. View "St. Maron v. City of Houston" on Justia Law

This False Claims Act case involves Medicare reimbursements to Stone County Hospital (SCH), a critical access hospital in Wiggins, Mississippi. At trial, the Government proved that Appellants (a corporate management company, company owner, corporate executives, and SCH) defrauded Medicare out of millions over the span of twelve years by overbilling for the owner’s and his wife’s compensation despite little or no reimbursable work. The district court’s judgment in favor of the Government included an order barring Appellants from dissipating their assets. Almost two years later, the district court issued a temporary enforcement order that specifically barred Appellants from selling a piece of real property. Appellants separately appealed the enforcement of this post-judgment injunction.   The Fifth Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. The court explained that Appellants’ arguments on appeal fail to undercut the jury’s verdict. But the Government’s dilatory conduct over the protracted procedural history of this case gives pause, even if the Government largely prevails today. When Appellants interposed the statute of limitations because of the Government’s dawdling, the Government maintained its claims were timely. It does the same on appeal. But the Government’s own sealed extension request memoranda, which remains sealed to this day, demonstrate otherwise. Further, the court explained that contrary to Appellants’ frequent reference to “nonparties” in their briefing, Defendants in fact own, or control the property in question, albeit through indirect corporate entities. At the end of the day, the only ownership interests beyond Defendants in any of the relevant entities are held by trusts for Defendants’ children. View "Aldridge v. Corporate Management" on Justia Law

Louisiana State University (“LSU”) (collectively “the Professors”) appealed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity after Plaintiff alleged that they violated his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process by conspiring to prevent his continued enrollment in Louisiana State University’s (“LSU”) theatre program.   The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s determination that they were not entitled to qualified immunity and dismissed Plaintiff’s claims. The court held that the Professors lacked adequate notice that their conduct was violative of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights, and because they did not have this notice, they are entitled to qualified immunity. The court explained that the clearly established standard requires more than that—there must be a “high degree of specificity” between the alleged misconduct and the caselaw purporting to clearly establish the violation. Without it, the requisite “fair warning” required under the clearly established inquiry is absent. View "Babinski v. Sosnowsky" on Justia Law