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

Savion Hall, an inmate at Midland County Jail, suffered severe breathing issues that were known to prison officials. The jail contracted with Soluta, Inc., a private company, for medical services, but Soluta employees failed to provide standard medical care to Hall and fabricated his medical reports. Eventually, Hall required urgent medical attention, but when he asked Daniel Stickel, a prison guard, for help, Stickel followed set protocol: Hall was only supposed to receive “breathing treatments” every four hours; because less than four hours had elapsed since Hall’s last treatment, Stickel sent him back to his cell. Eventually, Hall was seen by a doctor, who called Emergency Medical Services (“EMS”). Hall died in the hospital. Plaintiffs, various relatives and representatives of Hall’s estate appealed the dismissal of his constitutional claims against Midland County and Stickel.   The Fifth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that municipalities such as Midland County cannot be held liable unless plaintiffs can show “(1) an official policy (or custom), of which (2) a policymaker can be charged with actual or constructive knowledge, and (3) a constitutional violation whose ‘moving force’ is that policy or custom.” The court explained that there are no allegations that anyone other than the Soluta employees was aware, or should have been aware, of the nurses’ failure to provide adequate medical care. The court reasoned that this implies that neither Soluta nor Midland County4 knew of the “policy” of failing to follow the proper medical procedures. Further, the court held that Plaintiffs have not plausibly pleaded deliberate indifference predicated on a delay in medical treatment. View "Robinson v. Midland County, Texas" on Justia Law

Plaintiff is a devout Rastafarian who vowed to “let the locks of the hair of his head grow,” a promise known as the Nazarite Vow. During his brief stint in prison, Plaintiff was primarily housed at two facilities, and each facility respected Plaintiff’s vow. With only three weeks left in his sentence—Plaintiff was transferred to RLCC. Plaintiff explained that he was a practicing Rastafarian and provided proof of past religious accommodations. And Plaintiff also handed the guard a copy of the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Ware v. Louisiana Department of Corrections. The guard threw Plaintiff’s papers in the trash and summoned RLCC’s warden. When the Warden arrived, he demanded Plaintiff hand over documentation from his sentencing judge that corroborated his religious beliefs. Guards then carried him into another room, handcuffed him to a chair, held him down, and shaved his head. Plaintiff brought claims under RLUIPA and Section 1983. He also pleaded state law claims for negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and violations of the Louisiana constitution. The district court agreed with Defendants and held that those claims were moot. Plaintiff appealed.   The Fifth Circuit affirmed. The court concluded that while Sossamon I RLUIPA’s text suggests a damages remedy, recognizing as much would run afoul of the Spending Clause. Tanzin doesn’t change that—it addresses a different law that was enacted under a separate Congressional power with “concerns not relevant to [RLUIPA].” Accordingly, the court held because Sossamon I remains the law, Plaintiff cannot recover monetary damages against the defendant-officials in their individual capacities under RLUIPA. View "Landor v. Louisiana Dept of Corrections" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine and was sentenced to 188 months of imprisonment, to be served consecutively to any sentence imposed in two unrelated state proceedings, and three years of supervised release. The Fifth Circuit dismissed his appeal, and the Supreme Court denied certiorari. Defendant then filed a 28 U.S.C. Section 2255 motion seeking relief from his plea. The district court denied the motion, and Defendant appealed.   The Fifth Circuit affirmed the denial of the Section 2255 motion. However, the court noted that this case reveals uncertainty in its caselaw regarding argument forfeiture, ineffective assistance of counsel (“IAC”) in guilty pleas, and the nature of non-constitutional appeals in Section 2255 proceedings. The court explained that there are three issues. First, whether Defendant forfeited his argument that his counsel was ineffective in advising him about his guideline range. The court held that the answer was no. Second, the court explained that assuming that it reaches the merits of Defendant’s claim, whether he can prevail on it. Again, the court answered no. And third, whether Defendant is entitled to a COA on whether the district court abused its discretion by denying discovery.  The court explained that by treating Defendant’s request for a COA as a direct appeal, the district court did not abuse its discretion. Moreover, the court explained that it has now rejected Defendant’s guidelines-advice claim, and there is no indication either in his briefing or in the record that the discovery he seeks would conceivably produce a different result. View "USA v. Lincks" on Justia Law

The Verona Police Department twice arrested L.B. for his connection to violent shootings. Both times, however, he was released while his charges were pending. Just five months after his second arrest, L.B. drove to Annie Walton’s house and opened fire—killing Annie Walton and injuring her grandson, Aliven Walton. Annie Walton’s wrongful death beneficiaries (collectively, Plaintiffs ) believe the City of Verona and the Verona Chief of Police, J.B. Long, are responsible for the shooting at Annie Walton’s home, so they sued under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and the Mississippi Tort Claims Act. At summary judgment, the district court initially dismissed all claims. But Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration, and the district court reversed course—finding the City of Verona was not entitled to sovereign immunity under the Mississippi Tort Claims Act. Plaintiffs and the City of Verona subsequently filed interlocutory appeals.   The Fifth Circuit dismissed Plaintiffs appeal for lack of jurisdiction and reversed the district court’s finding against the City regarding sovereign immunity. The court explained that Long had no special duty to protect Plaintiffs besides his general duty to keep the public safe as the City’s Chief of Police. The court explained that the only evidence that demonstrates Long had knowledge of any connection between L.B. and Plaintiffs comes from Long’s investigative file, where there is a copy of a trespassing complaint that Annie filed against L.B. in 2016. Accordingly, the court held Long did not owe a duty to protect Plaintiffs from L.B.’s drive-by shooting. Thus, Plaintiffs cannot sustain their negligence claims or their MTCA claims against the City. View "Walton v. City of Verona" on Justia Law

Petitioners in this immigration case are a husband and wife who applied for asylum and withholding of removal based on their membership in the proposed particular social group of “Salvadoran business owners.” The immigration judge (IJ) denied the family asylum and withheld removal, concluding that “extorted business owners” do not constitute a particular social group (PSG), that no showing of nexus is possible without a PSG, and that extortion is not persecution. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the IJ’s ruling that the family had not asserted a cognizable PSG.   The Fifth Circuit denied Petitioners’ petition for review. The court held that regardless of geography, “business owners” are not a protected social group. The court explained that to be eligible for asylum, an applicant must show, among other things, that “race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion was or will be at least one central reason for persecuting the applicant.” The court wrote that “business owner” is not an immutable trait. The court reasoned that because a PSG is an essential element of claims for asylum and withholding of removal, Petitioners cannot succeed on either claim. View "Munoz-De Zalaya v. Garland" on Justia Law

A Texas citizen brought state-law claims in federal court against “Dining Alliance Inc.” Prior to the suit, however, Dining Alliance Inc. had converted into Dining Alliance LLC (“Dining Alliance”), whose citizenship may include both Texas and Delaware. This potential jurisdictional defect was not recognized because Dining Alliance originally answered under the name Dining Alliance Inc. and represented itself as a Massachusetts citizen. Dining Alliance unacceptably hid the ball with respect to the elementary jurisdictional facts during the entire course of litigation, including on appeal. The district court dismissed its third-party claims with prejudice as a sanction for that willful abuse of the judicial process.   The Fifth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that a district court may invoke its inherent power to dismiss claims with prejudice in order to protect “the integrity of the judicial process.” It must find that the litigant acted in bad faith or willfully abused the judicial process. It must also find that “lesser sanctions would not serve the best interests of justice.” The court wrote that contrary to Dining Alliance’s assertion, the district court found that Dining Alliance itself willfully abused the judicial process based on the totality of its litigation misconduct, which culminated in its refusal to obey the court’s order. That misstatement was reckless because the company’s transformation into Dining Alliance LLC should have been and apparently was known at the time. Accordingly, the court held that the district court neither lacked jurisdiction nor abused its discretion in dismissing Dining Alliance LLC’s third-party claims with prejudice as a sanction for its willful abuse of the judicial process. View "Dining Alliance v. Foodbuy" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs—three doctors, a news website, a healthcare activist, and two states—had posts and stories removed or downgraded by the platforms. Their content touched on a host of divisive topics. Plaintiffs maintain that although the platforms stifled their speech, the government officials were the ones pulling the strings. They sued the officials for First Amendment violations and asked the district court to enjoin the officials’ conduct. In response, the officials argued that they only “sought to mitigate the hazards of online misinformation” by “calling attention to content” that violated the “platforms’ policies,” a form of permissible government speech. The district court agreed with Plaintiffs and granted preliminary injunctive relief. In reaching that decision, it reviewed the conduct of several federal offices but only enjoined the White House, the Surgeon General, the CDC, the FBI, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), and the Department of State.   The Fifth Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated the injunction in part, and modified the injunction in part. The court explained that the White House officials, in conjunction with the Surgeon General’s office, coerced and significantly encouraged the platforms to moderate content. As a result, the platforms’ actions “must in law be deemed to be that of the State.” Further, the court held that the CDC officials likely significantly encouraged the platforms’ moderation decisions. However, the court found that for the NIAID officials, it is not apparent that they ever communicated with the social media platforms. View "State of Missouri v. Biden" on Justia Law

Petitioner E a native and citizen of El Salvador, attempted to enter the United States near Hidalgo, Texas, with her daughter Katherine. An asylum officer interviewed Petitioner and determined that she had a credible fear of persecution based on her membership in a particular social group. The Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) then personally served Petitioner and Katherine each with a Notice to Appear (“NTA”), charging them with removability under 8 U.S.C. Section 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I), as aliens who sought admission without a valid entry document. In December 2018, Petitioner appeared before the IJ again and set forth her claims for immigration relief. She asserted that her claim for asylum and withholding of removal was based on her membership in several particular social groups. The IJ issued an oral decision denying Petitioner’s claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection and ordered her and her daughters removed to El Salvador. The BIA also rejected Petitioner’s argument.   The Fifth Circuit denied Petitioner’s petition for review. The court held that substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Petitioner is ineligible for immigration relief in the form of asylum because has failed to show the requisite nexus between the harm she claims she suffered and feared in El Salvador and a protected statutory ground. Further, the court held that the BIA did not err in rejecting Petitioner’s argument on this issue, given its reasoning that the IJ considered “the entirety of the evidence of record,” which included the relevant testimony. View "Martinez-De Umana v. Garland" on Justia Law

Louisiana oil and gas law authorizes the state Commissioner of Conservation to combine separate tracts of land and appoint a unit operator to extract the minerals. Plaintiffs own unleased mineral interests in Louisiana that are part of a forced drilling unit. BPX is the operator. Plaintiffs alleged on behalf of themselves and a named class that BPX has been improperly deducting post-production costs from their pro rata share of production and that this practice is improper per se. The district court granted BPX’s motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ per se claims, holding that the quasi-contractual doctrine of negotiorum gestio provides a mechanism for BPX to properly deduct postproduction costs. Plaintiffs filed this action as purported representatives of a named class of unleased mineral owners whose interests are situated within forced drilling units formed by the Louisiana Office of Conservation and operated by BPX. BPX removed this action to the district court based on both diversity and federal question jurisdiction. BPX sought dismissal of the Plaintiffs’ primary claim. The district court granted BPX’s motion to dismiss. The district court certified its ruling for interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b).The Fifth Circuit wrote that no controlling Louisiana case resolves the parties’ issue. Accordingly, the court certified the following determinative question of law to the Louisiana Supreme Court: 1) Does La. Civ. Code art. 2292 applies to unit operators selling production in accordance with La. R.S. 30:10(A)(3)? View "Self v. B P X Operating" on Justia Law

Plaintiff contracted with Dicom Transportation Group to work as a delivery driver. In this position, he would handle deliveries for Defendant L Brands Service Company, LLC. In 2017, after experiencing significant shrinkage at locations serviced by Plaintiff, Defendant Shawn Tolbert, a logistics asset protection manager at L Brands, and Defendant Aidan Duffy, the regional asset protection manager at L Brands, conducted a driver observation of Plaintiff. After discovering several indicators of fraud and interviewing Plaintiff, Tolbert and Duffy concluded that Plaintiff had been attempting to steal the product. The two reported their findings to both Dicom, who terminated Plaintiff’s contract, and local law enforcement, who later obtained a warrant and arrested Plaintiff on a charge of felony theft. No formal charge was filed against Plaintiff. Plaintiff subsequently filed suit against L Brands, Tolbert, and Duffy (collectively, “Defendants”) for claims of defamation, false arrest, malicious prosecution, and negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants and dismissed the case with prejudice. Plaintiff appealed.   The Fifth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that the statements at issue were limited communications that were made in good faith and only to interested parties. Accordingly, the conditional privilege applies such that Plaintiff cannot prevail on his defamation claim. Further, the court explained that Defendants provided evidence supporting their position that they reported their findings with the honest and reasonable belief that Plaintiff had attempted to steal cartons of L Brands merchandise. As with his defamation claim, Plaintiff provides no evidence to dispute this contention. View "Phillips v. L. Brands Service" on Justia Law