Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for the employer in an action brought by plaintiff, a former employee, under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). The court held that plaintiff failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact regarding the employer's reason for firing him. Although the parties agreed that plaintiff made a prima face case of employment discrimination, the court held that the employer provided a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for firing plaintiff: a broad reduction in force. The court also held that plaintiff failed to show that the employer's reason for firing him was pretextual. In this case, no evidence showed that age was a factor in any of the employer's firing decisions. View "McMichael v. Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc." on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of a petition for habeas relief because it was time-barred. The court held that petitioner's motion for reconsideration before the Supreme Court of Mississippi was "properly filed" under 28 U.S.C. 2244(d)(2), and that his one-year limitations period under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) would have been tolled while that motion was pending decision. Even accounting for the time that petitioner's AEDPA clock was tolled while his state habeas petition was pending both consideration and reconsideration, the court held that the factual predicate for his claim would have been discoverable through the exercise of due diligence more than a year prior to the filing of his federal habeas petition in December 2013. Accordingly, the petition was time barred under section 2244(d). View "Osborne v. Hall" on Justia Law

Texas, Indiana, and Louisiana, and seven individuals seeking to adopt Indian children filed suit against the United States, several federal agencies and officials, and five intervening Tribes, raising facial constitutional challenges to the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA) and statutory and constitutional challenges to the 2016 administrative rule (the Final Rule) that was promulgated by the Department of the Interior to clarify provisions of ICWA.The Fifth Circuit held that plaintiffs had standing to bring all claims; the ICWA and the Final Rule are constitutional because they are based on a political classification that is rationally related to the fulfillment of Congress's unique obligation toward Indians; ICWA preempts conflicting state laws and does not violate the Tenth Amendment anticommandeering doctrine; and ICWA and the Final Rule do not violate the nondelegation doctrine. The court also held that the Final Rule implementing the ICWA is valid because the ICWA is constitutional, the BIA did not exceed its authority when it issued the Final Rule, and the agency's interpretation of ICWA section 1915 is reasonable. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and rendered judgment in favor of defendants on all claims. View "Brackeen v. Bernhardt" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, a mother and her three minor children, filed suit against two employees of the state's child protective services agency, claiming a constitutional violation based on defendants' taking of the three children from their mother's custody under a temporary removal order. The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of defendants' motion to dismiss, holding that defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because there was no constitutional violation. In this case, there was an adequate basis for the issuance of the temporary conservatorship order and therefore there was no Fourth Amendment violation based on the Protective Services employee's affidavit. Furthermore, there was no vicarious liability that applied to the Protective Services supervisor and the claim was properly dismissed. Accordingly, the court remanded for further proceedings. View "Marks v. Hudson" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit granted the petition for panel rehearing and withdrew its prior opinion, substituting the following opinion.After Officer Doe was hit by an unidentified individual and seriously injured, he filed suit against Black Lives Matter, the group associated with the protest, and DeRay Mckesson, one of the leaders of Black Lives Matter and the organizer of the protest. The district court dismissed Officer Doe's claims on the pleadings and denied his motion to amend the complaint as futile.The Fifth Circuit remanded for further proceedings relative to Mckesson. Although the court held that Officer Doe has not adequately alleged that Mckesson was vicariously liable for the conduct of the unknown assailant or that Mckesson entered into a civil conspiracy with the purpose of injuring Officer Doe, the court found that Officer Doe adequately alleged that Mckesson was liable in negligence for organizing and leading the Baton Rouge demonstration to illegally occupy a highway. The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the action on First Amendment grounds, and thus Officer Doe has pleaded a claim for relief against Mckesson in his active complaint. The court also held that the district court erred by taking judicial notice of the legal status of Black Lives Matter, but nonetheless found that Officer Doe did not plead facts that would allow the court to conclude that Black Lives Matter was an entity capable of being sued. Therefore, the court reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Doe v. Mckesson" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit alleging that defendant, the newly elected district attorney, fired them because they supported his political opponent. The district court denied defendant qualified immunity on the individual and official capacity claims.The Fifth Circuit held that defendant was entitled to qualified immunity as to four of the plaintiffs and reversed based on defendant's qualified immunity. However, in regard to the individual capacity claims, the court held that genuine disputes of material fact exist as to whether Cazares, Palmira Munoz, and Maldonado were policymakers or confidential employees. Accordingly, the court dismissed the district court's judgment and remanded for further proceedings. View "Maldonado v. Rodriguez" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, 42 U.S.C. 1985, and state law, alleging claims stemming from an FBI sting operation. A government informant had assisted law enforcement officers in a drug exchange with plaintiff. Plaintiff was later acquitted of possession of heroin with intent to distribute and conspiracy.The Fifth Circuit held that plaintiff's section 1985 claims against the federal officers failed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), because section 1985(3) does not apply to federal officers; even assuming section 1985(3) covered plaintiff's proffered class of convicted felons, his claims could not survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion because he failed to link his conspiracy allegations to his status; plaintiff's section 1983 claims against Officer Barrera failed under the same standard where plaintiff failed to allege that Barrera formed any kind of agreement with anyone or that Barrera learned what transpired on the phone call between the informant and plaintiff; and the purported Bivens claim against Moody and LaBuz were not cognizable. Finally, the court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff's motion for leave to file a fourth amended complaint. View "Cantu v. Moody" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of a petition for habeas relief, holding that equitable tolling was appropriate under the specific circumstances presented. The court agreed with petitioner that the district court should have equitably tolled the limitations period while he waited for notice from the TCCA that it had denied his state habeas application. Accordingly, the court remanded for consideration of the habeas petition. View "Jackson v. Davis" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for the hospital in an action brought by plaintiff, alleging Title VII race discrimination. Applying the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework, the court held that the hospital offered a legitimate nondiscriminatory explanation for not hiring plaintiff (she never applied for a full time position), and plaintiff failed to show that the hospital's stated explanation was mere pretext.In regard to plaintiff's termination claim, plaintiff failed to show that she was treated differently from similarly situated white nurses. Even if plaintiff had made a prima facie case, the hospital met its burden by explaining that plaintiff's schedule at her new full-time job elsewhere conflicted with the only shifts available to PRN nurses. Furthermore, plaintiff identified no evidence that would prove that the hospital's explanation was pretext. View "Hassen v. Ruston Louisiana Hospital Co." on Justia Law

The Louisiana Small Business Development Center is not a juridical entity capable of being sued under federal law for alleged age discrimination. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of an action brought by plaintiff against the Center, alleging that she was fired because of age discrimination. The court held that plaintiff failed to state a claim and that the proper party to name as a defendant would have been the Board of Supervisors. However, the Board of Supervisors is an arm of the state entitled to state sovereign immunity against claims brought under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. View "Edmiston v. LA Small Business Development Center" on Justia Law