Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of habeas relief to petitioner, who was convicted of murder. Petitioner claimed that his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel was violated because his trial attorney failed to object when the prosecution asked a witness whether petitioner was in the United States legally. The court held that, even if counsel's nonobjection constituted ineffective assistance, petitioner failed to show prejudice. In this case, evidence of petitioner's guilt was overwhelming. View "Sanchez v. Davis" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of a law enforcement officer, dismissing plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. 1983 excessive force claim. The court held that plaintiff failed to present a genuine issue of material fact regarding his excessive force claim where this circuit has repeatedly held that an officer's use of deadly force is reasonable when an officer reasonably believes that a suspect was attempting to use or reach for a weapon. In this case, it was undisputed that the officer saw plaintiff intentionally brandish a firearm at the approaching officers. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting the officer's motion to strike certain evidence and statements offered by plaintiff in summary judgment proceedings. View "Valderas v. City of Lubbock" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for plaintiffs in an action against Judges of the Orleans Parish Criminal District Court under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that the Judges' practices in collecting criminal fines and fees violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.The court agreed and held that the district court did not err in applying the principles from Tumey v. State of Ohio, which held that officers acting in a judicial or quasi judicial capacity are disqualified by their interest in the controversy to be decided, and Ward v. Vill. of Monroeville, which presented a situation in which an official perforce occupies two inconsistent positions and necessarily involves a lack of due process of law in the trial of defendants charged with crimes before him. In this case, the Judges have exclusive authority over how the Judicial Expense Fund is spent, they must account for the OPCDC budget to the New Orleans City Council and New Orleans Mayor, and the fines and fees make up a significant portion of their annual budget. View "Cain v. White" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit held that the Texas Citizens Participation Act, which is a type of anti-SLAPP statute, does not apply to diversity cases in federal court. In this case, plaintiff's son committed suicide after being refused permission to graduate. The son was allegedly the victim of defendant's false charge of homophobic harassment, for which the University administered its severe punishment after allegedly violating Title IX procedures designed to achieve due process. Plaintiff filed suit against the University for Title IX violations and defendant for common law defamation and defamation per se. Defendant moved to dismiss the defamation claims under the Act. In light of its holding, the court reversed the district court's grant of defendant's motion to dismiss and remanded, holding that plaintiff may pursue his case under the federal rules unhindered by the Act. View "Klocke v. Watson" on Justia Law

On petition for rehearing en banc following remand from the Supreme Court, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the denial of summary judgment on plaintiff's excessive force claim.Plaintiff and his parents filed suit against police officers under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that the officers violated plaintiff's Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights during an incident in which the officers shot plaintiff without warning and then lied about what happened. The en banc court held that it will be for a jury, and not judges, to resolve the competing factual narratives as detailed in the district court opinion and the record as to the excessive force claim. Accordingly, the en banc court dismissed the officers' appeal. The court also affirmed the denial of the motion to dismiss the Fourteenth Amendment false charge claim; reversed the denial of the motion to dismiss the Fourth Amendment and Brady fabrication-of-evidence claims based on qualified immunity; and remanded to the district court for further proceedings. View "Cole v. Carson" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against state prison officials, alleging Eighth Amendment violations and state-law wrongful death and survival claims arising out of her son’s death. Plaintiff discovered a year later that her son had two children and thus she substituted their natural tutors (their mothers) as plaintiffs after the expiration of the statutory limitations period. The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's reversal of the tutors' wrongful death and 42 U.S.C. 1983 claims, holding that the substitution satisfied the four Giroir factors and related back to the date of the initial complaint. View "Moore v. LA Department of Public Safety" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment on plaintiff's race discrimination and retaliation claims under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. 1981. In this case, plaintiff was terminated from her position as deputy clerk with the City of Houston, Mississippi as part of a group of layoffs designed to offset the City's budget shortfall. The court held that plaintiff failed to present a genuine issue of material fact that her race was a motivating factor in her termination or that there was a causal connection between her EEOC complaint and that termination. View "Harville v. City of Houston" on Justia Law

Walmart filed a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action against the TABC, challenging Texas statutes that govern the issuance of permits allowing for the retail sale of liquor in Texas (package store permits). TPSA later intervened as a matter of right in defense of the statutes.The Fifth Circuit held that Tex. Alco. Bev. Code 22.16 is a facially neutral statute that bans all public corporations from obtaining P permits irrespective of domicile. The court held that, although the district court correctly cited the Arlington framework, it committed clear error in finding that section 22.16 was enacted with a purpose to discriminate against interstate commerce. Therefore, the court remanded Walmart's dormant Commerce Clause challenge for reconsideration of whether the ban was enacted with a discriminatory purpose. Furthermore, a remand was necessary to allow the district court to find facts for proper application of the Pike test.The court affirmed the district court's judgment rejecting Walmart's Equal Protection challenge to the public corporation ban, holding that there was a rational basis for Texas' decision to ban all public corporations from obtaining package store permits and its legitimate purpose of reducing the availability and consumption of liquor throughout Texas. Finally, Walmart's challenges to section 22.04 and 22.05 are withdrawn. View "Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit denied petitioner's motion for a certificate of appealability, holding that reasonable jurists would not debate that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner's Rule 60(b) motion. In this case, petitioner failed to brief any waived claims sufficient to allow the district court to determine whether extraordinary circumstances were present, and petitioner failed to provide the court any authority that 18 U.S.C. 3599 has ever provided relief under Rule 60(b).However, in light of In re Cathey, 857 F.3d 221 (5th Cir. 2017), the court held that Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002), created a new rule of constitutional law made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court. The court granted petitioner's motion for authorization of a successive application for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. 2244(b)(2)(A) and stayed his execution. The court held that petitioner made a prima facie showing of intellectual disability. Finally, the court held that the district court was in a better position to determine the timeliness of petitioner's motion for a successive application. View "Johnson v. Davis" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a pretrial detainee, filed suit against the County and county officials for allegedly violating his constitutional rights by being deliberately indifferent to his health, safety, and medical needs. Plaintiff also filed suit against a prison nurse for retaliation and the County for negligence under Texas law.In regard to the deliberate indifference claims, the court held that there was insufficient information about a deputy sheriff's driving and no evidence to allow a finding that the deputy's actual knowledge that the manner in which he was driving created a substantial risk of harm; plaintiff failed to show deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs; plaintiff's conclusory allegations were not sufficient to state a claim that the treating physicians denied him adequate pain medication and access to physical therapy; plaintiff failed to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact disputing that the nurse was hesitant to administer his medicine because of security concerns and jail policy; and claims against the official capacity defendants were properly dismissed. In regard to the retaliation claims, the court held that plaintiff failed to allege any harm from the nurse's purported retaliatory acts and there was no evidence that the nurse's reporting of medical personnel who entered plaintiff's cell had any consequences on plaintiff. Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of some of the claims and grant of summary judgment for defendants on all others. View "Baughman v. Hickman" on Justia Law