Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

Wardrip committed five murders in Texas in 1984-1986.. He surrendered to police and confessed to his last murder. Wardrip was released on parole in 1997. After DNA testing connected Wardrip to unsolved murders, he was arrested and confessed to four other murders. At trial, the state introduced Wardrip’s prison disciplinary record, with only two infractions during his 11 years in prison. Wardrip’s defense counsel called a parole officer and an employer to testify to Wardrip’s good behavior while on parole. Waldrip’s attorney, Curry, later explained that suggesting Wardrip had rehabilitated would have required putting Wardrip on the stand. Curry wanted jurors to focus on the fact that Wardrip was not a disciplinary problem and not a danger to anyone if imprisoned for life. The jury found that Wardrip would be a threat to society and that mitigating circumstances did not warrant life imprisonment. The court sentenced Wardrip to death. Texas courts denied habeas relief.The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of federal habeas relief. It was not an “unreasonable determination of the facts” for the state court to find that Curry had conducted a reasonable investigation that made him aware of Wardrip’s good conduct while imprisoned and made a reasonable strategic decision regarding what evidence to present, satisfying Strickland’s standard for effective assistance of counsel. It was also reasonable for the court to conclude that whatever else Curry might have done, the failure to take those steps had not prejudiced Wardrip. View "Wardrip v. Lumpkin" on Justia Law

Vialva was convicted under federal law of capital murder and sentenced to death. Since his 2000 conviction, Vialva’s conviction was affirmed on direct appeal; his 28 U.S.C. 2255 challenge was denied; and his effort to vacate the denial of his section 2255 motion under FRCP 60(b) failed. The Federal Bureau of Prisons scheduled Vialva’s execution for September 24, 2020, and informed Vialva on July 31, 2020. Vialva moved to enjoin his execution.The Fifth Circuit affirmed the denial of relief. Vialva is unlikely to succeed on the merits of his primary argument on appeal, that Texas state law should have been followed with respect to the issuance of an execution warrant and the setting of execution dates. Vialva has not shown the remaining factors favor a stay of execution. Vialva has thoroughly litigated his conviction and sentence. He was given official notice well in advance of his execution date. Vialva is not challenging his death sentence, but only the pre-execution procedures for carrying it out. The public’s interest in timely enforcement of the death sentence outweighs Vialva’s request for more time. View "United States v. Vialva" on Justia Law

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

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 Michael Renfroe was shot to death by a sheriff's deputy, Mrs. Renfroe filed a 42 U.S.C. 1983 claim for excessive force, as well as several state law claims. The deputy was responding to a 911 call from an individual who reported an attempted robbery when the officer encountered the Renfroes.The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of qualified immunity to defendants, rejecting Mrs. Renfroe's claim that the qualified immunity doctrine violates the separation of powers and is therefore unconstitutional and void. The court also rejected Mrs. Renfroe's challenge to the district court's exclusion of an expert report because it addressed an issue of law and did not create an issue of fact as to what occurred on the night of the shooting. The court also held that, given Mrs. Renfroe's failure to offer competent summary judgment evidence, her claims challenging the district court's grant of summary judgment are without merit. In this case, despite being present, Mrs. Renfroe did not submit an affidavit describing what she saw as the shooting unfolded. Furthermore, the allegations in her complaint are insufficient. Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Mrs. Renfroe's discovery motion. View "Renfroe v. Parker" on Justia Law

Section 82.003 of the Texas Election Code does not violate plaintiff's Twenty-Sixth Amendment right to vote during the COVID-19 pandemic. Plaintiffs based their Twenty-Sixth Amendment claim on the argument that differential treatment in allowing voters aged 65 and older to vote by mail without excuse constitutes, at least during the pandemic, a denial or abridgment of a younger citizen's right to vote on account of age.The Fifth Circuit vacated the preliminary injunction requiring Texas officials to allow any Texan eligible to vote to do so by absentee ballot. After determining that the voter plaintiffs have met their burden on the causation prong and therefore have standing, the court held that sovereign immunity does not bar suit against the Secretary and the political question doctrine does not bar the court's review.On the merits, the court held that adding a benefit to another class of voters neither denies nor abridges plaintiffs' Twenty-Sixth Amendment right to vote. The court explained that at-risk voters of any age can utilize the Election Code's disability provision to mitigate the risk of COVID-19. However, it does not permit all voters to claim that reasonable fear of exposure is a disability. The court further stated that there are quite reasonable concerns about voting in person, but the state's mandating that many voters continue to vote in that way does not amount to an absolute prohibition of the right to vote. As to abridgment, the court stated that voters under age 65 did not have no-excuse absentee voting prior to the pandemic. Furthermore, requiring many to vote in person during this crisis, with safety measures being imposed and some flexibility as to "disability" being shown, does not amount to an unconstitutional status quo. The court noted that the real issue here is equal protection, which is not before the court. The court remanded for further proceedings. View "Texas Democratic Party v. Abbott" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of qualified immunity to police officers in an action brought by plaintiff alleging that the officers violated the Constitution when they mistakenly arrested him instead of his half-brother who has the same name. The court held that Officer Evans is entitled to qualified immunity where it was not clearly established at the time that Evans' conduct was unconstitutional. In this case, Evans relied on a wiretap to identify a potential drug deal, then surveilled that exchange, traced phones and license plates back to a particular name, and eventually arrested a man by that name. The court rejected defendant's claim under Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978), because defendant has not shown that Evans acted recklessly. Rather, everything in the record suggests that the officer made an honest mistake. View "Nerio v. Evans" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a civil rights action alleging that school administrators discriminated against him because he is an African American male. In this case, on the first day of high school, the Dean of Students asked teachers to send students with dyed hair to his office. All the students sent to the Dean's office were African American. The Dean and the Principal did not let plaintiff attend class that day because of his "two toned" blonde hairstyle. Although many students of all races, male and female, wore dyed hair to school, plaintiff was the only one disciplined for violating the school's hair policy during the school year. The district court granted defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.The Fifth Circuit held that plaintiff's intentional discrimination claim was untimely, but his harassment claim was timely based on the continuing violation doctrine. The court reversed the dismissal of plaintiff's harassment claims under Title VI and Title IX against the Board, holding that plaintiff plausibly alleged that the Dean's harassment of plaintiff stemmed from a discriminatory view that African American males should not have two-toned blonde hair. Furthermore, the harassment may well have been so severe, pervasive, and offensive that it denied plaintiff an educational benefit, and it is plausible that the school board knew about the harassment, did little to ensure plaintiff was safe, and was therefore deliberately indifferent. However, the court held that plaintiff has not pleaded that the school board officials were deliberately indifferent to the Dean's retaliatory conduct. Therefore, the court affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff's retaliation claim. View "Sewell v. Monroe City School Board" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against the Texas Secretary of State Ruth Hughs under 42 U.S.C. 1983 for allegedly imposing a voter-registration requirement that violates federal law. After the district court denied the Secretary's motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and (b)(6), the Secretary noticed an interlocutory appeal, and plaintiffs moved for summary affirmance or dismissal of the Secretary's appeal as frivolous.The Fifth Circuit held that the Secretary's appeal is not frivolous because it presents an important question that has not been resolved by the court: whether and to what extent the exception in Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 157 (1908), to sovereign immunity permits plaintiffs to sue the Secretary in an as-applied challenge to a law enforced by local officials. Accordingly, the court denied the motion for summary affirmance and the motion to dismiss the appeal as frivolous. View "Texas Democratic Party v. Hughs" on Justia Law