Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs allege that for years, prosecutors at the Orleans Parish District Attorney's Office, under the direction of District Attorney Leon Cannizzaro, used fake "subpoenas" to pressure crime victims and witnesses to meet with them. The Fifth Circuit held that (1) at this early, motion to dismiss stage, the individual defendants are not entitled to absolute immunity for plaintiffs' subpoena-related state-law claims and (2) the court lacked jurisdiction to consider the merits of plaintiffs' claims. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's holding that the individual defendants are not entitled to absolute immunity for their alleged creation and use of fraudulent subpoenas, but dismissed the remainder of defendants' appeal for lack of jurisdiction. View "Singleton v. Cannizzaro" on Justia Law

On April 7, 2020, the Fifth Circuit issued a writ of mandamus vacating the district court's temporary restraining order (TRO) that exempted abortions from GA-09, an emergency measure temporarily postponing non-essential medical procedures during the COVID-19 pandemic. On April 9, 2020, the district court entered a second TRO exempting various categories of abortion from GA-09. At issue in this mandamus petition is the April 9 TRO.The court held that the district court disregarded the court's mandate in Abbott II and failed to apply the framework governing emergency exercises of state authority during a public health crisis, established over 100 years ago in Jacobson v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905). Furthermore, the district court second-guessed the basic mitigation strategy underlying GA-09 (the concept of "flattening the curve"), and also acted without knowing critical facts such as whether, during this pandemic, abortion providers do (or should) wear masks or other protective equipment when meeting with patients. The court concluded that these errors resulted in an overbroad TRO that exceeds the district court's jurisdiction, reaches patently erroneous results, and usurps the state's authority to craft emergency public health measures "during the escalating COVID-19 pandemic." Therefore, the court granted the writ in part and directed the district court to vacate parts of the April 9 TRO. View "In re: Greg Abbott" on Justia Law

After Danarian Hawkins committed suicide while incarcerated in the Harris County Jail, his mother filed suit against the County for compensatory damages under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the County, holding that plaintiff failed to prove that Hawkins was subjected to intentional discrimination. In this case, Harris County did not intentionally discriminate against Hawkins by failing to remove the towel covering his window or by failing to conduct observation rounds every twenty-five minutes; the non-medical staff at the Harris County Jail did not intentionally discriminate against Hawkins by failing to provide additional accommodations, such as the suicide-prevention measures identified by plaintiff; and the nurse who spoke with Hawkins the night before he died did not intentionally discriminate against Hawkins by failing to refer him to the Mental Health Unit or by failing to implement suicide-prevention measures. View "Smith v. Harris County" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs appealed the district court's dismissal, on qualified immunity grounds, of their deliberate-indifference claims against paramedics and police officers employed by the City of Mesquite. Plaintiffs' claims arose out of the death of their 18 year old son from self-inflicted head trauma while in police custody. He died after violently bashing his head over 40 times against the interior of a patrol car while being transported to jail.The Fifth Circuit held that the complaint failed to allege facts that plausibly show the paramedics' deliberate indifference. In this case, plaintiffs alleged that the paramedics failed to provide additional care. However, the court held that precedent has consistently recognized that deliberate indifference cannot be inferred merely from a negligent or even a grossly negligent response to a substantial risk of serious harm. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of these claims.The court held that there are genuine disputes of material fact as to whether Officer Scott, like Gafford and Heidelburg, acted with deliberate indifference to the son's serious medical needs. Furthermore, a reasonable jury could conclude that the Officers were either aware, or should have been aware, because it was so obvious, of an unjustifiably high risk to the son's health; they did nothing to seek medical attention; and they even misstated the severity of the son's condition to those who could have sought help. Accordingly, the court reversed the summary judgment dismissal of the deliberate indifference claims against the officers and remanded for further proceedings. View "Dyer v. Houston" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit granted a writ of mandamus directing vacatur of the district court's issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO) against executive order GA-09 as applied to abortion procedures. In order to preserve critical medical resources during the escalating COVID-19 pandemic, the Governor of Texas issued GA-09, which postpones non-essential surgeries and procedures until 11:59 p.m. on April 21, 2020.The court held that the drastic and extraordinary remedy of mandamus was warranted in this case because the district court ignored the framework governing emergency public health measures, like GA-09, in Jacobson v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905); the district court wrongly declared GA-09 an "outright ban" on previability abortions and exempted all abortion procedures from its scope, rather than apply the Jacobson framework to decide whether GA-09 lacks a "real or substantial relation" to the public health crisis or whether it is "beyond all question, a plain, palpable invasion" of the right to abortion; the district court failed to apply the undue-burden analysis in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 857 (1992), and thus failed to balance GA-09's temporary burdens on abortion against its benefits in thwarting a public health crisis; and the district court usurped the state's authority to craft emergency health measures, substituting instead its own view of the efficacy of applying GA-09 to abortion. Therefore, the court found that the requirements for a writ of mandamus are satisfied in light of the extraordinary nature of these errors, the escalating spread of COVID-19, and the state's critical interest in protecting the public health. View "In re: Gregg Abbott" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the district court's dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. 1983 complaint based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1). Plaintiff alleged that the Board of the HCC violated his First Amendment right to free speech when the Board publicly censured him.The Fifth Circuit held that plaintiff's allegations established standing and a state law claim for relief under section 1983 for a First Amendment violation. In this case, plaintiff alleged that the censure was issued to punish him for exercising his free speech rights and caused him mental anguish. Under the court's precedent, plaintiff's allegation of retaliatory censure is enough to establish an injury in fact. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded the section 1983 claim for damages for further proceedings. However, plaintiff's claims for declaratory and injunctive relief were moot because he is no longer a Board trustee. Therefore, the court granted HCC's motion for partial dismissal of plaintiff's appeal, instructing the district court to dismiss plaintiff's claims for declaratory and injunctive relief after remand. View "Wilson v. Houston Community College System" on Justia Law

After the district court concluded that the Governor and Director violated FFRF's First Amendment rights by requiring FFRF to take down a Bill of Rights nativity exhibit at the Capitol, the Governor and Director appealed.The Fifth Circuit held that the district court had jurisdiction to entertain this suit where FFRF sought prospective relief, and there was, and still is, a live controversy between the parties. However, the court held that the district court did not have jurisdiction to enter a retrospective declaratory judgment. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded for the district court to consider FFRF's request for injunctive relief and enter appropriate prospective relief for FFRF. The court also reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment on FFRF's unbridled discretion claims, clarified the appropriate application of the unbridled discretion doctrine in the context of a limited public forum, and remanded for the district court to apply that standard in the first instance. View "Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc. v. Abbott" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, low-income African-American women whose children attend public schools in Mississippi, filed suit against state officials, alleging that the current version of the Mississippi Constitution violates the "school rights and privileges" condition of the Mississippi Readmission Act. The district court held that the suit was barred by the Eleventh Amendment and dismissed.Although the Fifth Circuit agreed that a portion of the relief plaintiffs seek is prohibited by the Eleventh Amendment, the court held that the suit also partially sought relief that satisfied the Ex parte Young exception to sovereign immunity. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, and vacated and remanded in part. View "Williams v. Reeves" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Shell in an action brought by plaintiff under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). In this case, the day after Shell formally disciplined plaintiff for violating its attendance policy, she missed her scheduled shift because she got arrested for drunk driving and wrecked her truck.The court held that employees cannot immunize themselves from legitimate termination by taking FMLA leave. In regard to plaintiff's FMLA retaliation claim, the court held that Shell produced evidence that plaintiff would have been lawfully terminated had she not taken leave, and thus she had no right to return to work. The court held that plaintiff failed to make a prima facie case under the ADA because she did not present admissible evidence establishing that she was disabled or that Shell regarded her as disabled. Even if plaintiff had made a prima facie case, her argument failed for the same reasons her FMLA retaliation claim failed. View "Amedee v. Shell Chemical, L.P." on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's order granting several motions for judgment on the pleadings brought by defendants in a First Amendment retaliation action. The action stemmed from the termination of plaintiffs, two state employees, for allegedly reporting an internal investigation into patrol officers' issuing non-existent traffic violations.The court held that Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity barred plaintiffs' claims. The court also held that the district court correctly dismissed plaintiffs' section 1983 claim for retaliation in violation of First Amendment rights for failure to allege sufficient facts that plaintiffs spoke as a citizen on a matter of public concern. View "Corn v. Mississippi Department of Public Safety" on Justia Law