Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs and the United States filed suit against the State of Texas, as well as state and local officials, seeking to enjoin enforcement of some or all of the new provisions in Senate Bill 1, which amended various provisions of the Texas Election Code pertaining to voter registration, voting by mail, poll watchers, and more.The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of the Committees' motion to intervene as defendants, concluding that the Committees have a right to intervene under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2). The court determined that the Committees made a timely application to intervene by right; they claim interests relating to SB 1 which is the subject of this consolidated suit; their absence from the suit may practically impede their ability to protect their interests; and the existing parties might not adequately represent those interests. Accordingly, the court remanded to allow the Committees to intervene by right in this suit. View "La Union del Pueblo Entero v. Harris County Republican Party" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment in this civil rights action brought by plaintiff against his prior employer with one exception: the court reversed as to the hostile work environment claim. The court concluded that, under the totality of the circumstances, a single incident of harassment, if sufficiently severe, can give rise to a viable Title VII claim. In this case, the incident plaintiff has pleaded, that his supervisor directly called him a racial epithet containing the n-word in front of his fellow employees, states an actionable claim of hostile work environment. The court remanded for further consideration. View "Woods v. Cantrell" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal with prejudice of plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. 1983 action against Dallas County. Plaintiff filed suit after he was convicted of sexually abusing his son and the district attorney sought to revoke plaintiff's community supervision and proceed with adjudication. After plaintiff was convicted and sentenced to prison, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals ordered plaintiff released since polygraph results are inadmissible under Texas evidence law.The court concluded that the Dallas County district attorney acted as a state policymaker when he decided or acquiesced to the polygraph policy in this case. Therefore, there is no county policymaker to support plaintiff's Monell claim. The court also concluded that plaintiff failed to plausibly plead his failure-to-train-or-supervise theory against Dallas County under Mowbray v. Cameron County, 274 F.3d 269, 278 (5th Cir. 2001). View "Arnone v. County of Dallas" on Justia Law

In an action stemming from a land transaction dispute, the Fifth Circuit reversed as to federal and state qualified immunity and affirmed the denial of discretionary immunity under Louisiana law. The court held that the sheriff is entitled to qualified immunity barring plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. 1983 claim that the sheriff's improper management of the sheriff's sale of property in which plaintiff claimed an interest violated her protected rights. In this case, plaintiff failed to allege any personal involvement of the sheriff in the purported wrongdoing. However, on the sheriff's claim to discretionary immunity under Louisiana law, the court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the sheriff failed to timely raise the defense before that court. View "Magnolia Island Plantation, LLC v. Whittington" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit concluded that plaintiffs' action challenging the constitutionality of various provisions of the Texas Election Code regulating mail-in balloting is barred by sovereign immunity. The court concluded that the Secretary does not enforce the challenged provisions and thus the district court erred in finding the Secretary was a proper defendant under Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908). The court reversed the district court's judgment and remanded with instructions to dismiss plaintiffs' claims. View "Lewis v. Hughs" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit concluded that sovereign immunity bars plaintiffs' challenges to Texas's system for verifying the signatures on mail-in ballots. The court concluded that the Secretary does not verify mail-in ballots; rather, that is the job of local election officials. Therefore, the district court erred in finding that the Secretary was the proper defendant under Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908). Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's order enjoining the Secretary, vacated the injunction, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Flores v. Scott" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit concluded that plaintiffs' constitutional claims challenging Texas's elimination of straight-ticket voting are barred by sovereign immunity because the Secretary of State does not enforce the law that ended straight-ticket voting. The court agreed with the Secretary that he lacks the necessary connection to enforcing House Bill 25's repeal of straight-ticket voting and therefore is not a proper defendant under Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 155–56 (1908). Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's order enjoining the Secretary of State, vacated the injunction, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Texas Alliance for Retired Americans v. Scott" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. 1983 claims against law enforcement officers and other city employees based on qualified immunity. Plaintiff's claims arose from the officer's actions handcuffing, detaining, and involuntarily committing him after a welfare check. Plaintiff alleges that he experienced pain in his shoulder from tight handcuffing that occurred over a matter of minutes. The court concluded that plaintiff failed to state a claim that the officers violated his clearly established rights where tight handcuffing alone, even where a detainee sustains minor injuries, does not present an excessive force claim. View "Templeton v. Jarmillo" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of a preliminary injunction seeking to prohibit the Harris County District Attorney (DA) from enforcing a Texas anti-barratry law. The court concluded that plaintiff has not shown that his First Amendment claim is likely to succeed on the merits where the anti-barratry law is likely narrowly tailored to a compelling government interest in preventing confusion that damages relationships between appointed counsel and indigent defendants. The court declined plaintiff's request to assign the case to a different district judge on remand, concluding that this case does not merit reassignment under either of the two relevant tests. View "Willey v. Harris County District Attorney" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court's grant of summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's claims for sexual harassment and retaliation against the City of Houston. Plaintiff's claims stemmed from the repeated viewing of a private, intimate video of plaintiff by two senior firefighters. While the court agreed that there is no genuine dispute of material fact as to plaintiff's retaliation claim, the court disagreed with the district court's conclusion that no genuine issue exists as to her sexual harassment claim and that summary judgment for the City was appropriate.In this case, it is undisputed that plaintiff, a woman, is a member of a protected class and that she experienced unwelcome harassment; the harassment was based on sex and thus based on plaintiff's status as a member of a protected class; plaintiff has presented sufficient evidence to create a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the harassment was severe or pervasive enough to create an abusive and hostile work environment; and the conduct was objectively offensive to plaintiff and affected a term or condition of her employment. The court also concluded that plaintiff has presented sufficient evidence to create a genuine dispute as to whether the City knew or should have known about the harassment, and thus can be held liable. View "Abbt v. City of Houston" on Justia Law