Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

After appellants, each accompanied by a minor child, stated to Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) that they feared persecution in their home countries, they were arrested and charged with misdemeanor improper entry and detained in El Paso. Their children were transferred to the custody of the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR). In these consolidated appeals, appellants argued that they should not have been criminally prosecuted because they sought asylum, and being separated from their children rendered their convictions constitutionally infirm.The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment in favor of the government, holding that nothing in 8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(1)(A)(ii) prevents the government from initiating a criminal prosecution before or even during the mandated asylum process, nor have appellants shown that qualifying for asylum would be relevant to whether they improperly entered; appellants' argument that deporting them without their children amounted to cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment failed because the four deported appellants were found inadmissible during post-conviction civil immigration proceedings, rather than criminal proceedings; the court declined to apply the outrageous government conduct doctrine in this case; appellants' claims of right of access to evidence were rejected; appellants' fair trial claim repackaged appellants' unsuccessful Brady claim and failed for the same reasons; and the government did not impermissibly burden appellants' right against self-incrimination. View "United States v. Vasquez-Hernandez" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to a state prison officer in a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action alleging that the officer violated plaintiff's son's Eighth Amendment right against cruel and unusual punishment. In this case, the officer saw that plaintiff's son was hanging from a noose around his neck with a bedsheet suspended from the ceiling sprinkler head. The officer could not tell whether the son was actually hanging and in need of medical assistance or was staging suicide to draw officers into the cell for an ambush. The office immediately summoned for backup and did not enter the cell until seven minutes later, where they found the son dead. The court held that the officer's actions did not amount to deliberate indifference where he faithfully adhered to operating procedure. Therefore, the court held that the officer did not effectively disregard the known risk that the son might commit suicide. View "Arenas v. Calhoun" on Justia Law

After Jose Luis Garza died by suicide in jail, plaintiff filed a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action alleging violations of the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause in the time leading up to, and immediately following, Garza's suicide. In this case, Garza had a camera in his cell that was supposed to be monitored by police department employees. Garza had obscured the camera's lens and hanged himself without any employee noticing on the camera monitors.The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the City and held that plaintiff failed to set forth evidence by which the various police department employees' actions might reasonably be attributed to the City. Therefore, the City was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. View "Garza v. City of Donna" on Justia Law

After Jerry Waller was shot and killed by a Fort Worth police officer, plaintiffs filed suit alleging that the officer did not reasonably fear for his safety when he shot Waller. The district court concluded that plaintiffs pleaded enough facts to plausibly allege that the officer did not reasonably fear for his safety when he shot Waller, and that defendant police officers conspired with the officer to veil the true circumstances of Waller's death.The Fifth Circuit agreed with the district court that plaintiffs plausibly alleged that Waller was unarmed and thus posed no reasonably perceivable threat when the officer killed him. However, the court held that plaintiffs' claims alleging that defendants denied them access to the courts were currently unripe. Finally, the court held that plaintiffs did not have standing to seek declaratory (as oppose to retrospective) relief for the past injury to Waller. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part and reversed in part. View "Waller v. Hanlon" on Justia Law

After Officer John Doe was injured during a public protest, he filed suit against Black Lives Matter, the group associated with the protest and Defendant Mckesson, one of the leaders and organizers of the group. The Fifth Circuit 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. However, Officer Doe adequately alleged that Mckesson was liable in negligence for organizing and leading the Baton Rouge demonstration to illegally occupy a highway. Therefore, the district court erred in dismissing the suit on First Amendment grounds. The court also held that Officer Doe has pleaded a claim for relief against Mckesson in his active complaint. Finally, although the district court erred by taking judicial notice of the legal status of Black Lives Matter, the court agreed that Officer Doe did not plead facts that would allow the court to conclude that Black Lives Matter is an entity capable of being sued. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. View "Doe v. McKesson" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal of Cherry Knoll's complaint against the City of Lakeway, the city manager, and HDR Engineering in a dispute over a plat of land that Cherry Knoll had purchased in Lakeway. Cherry Knoll asserted a claim against the City under 42 U.S.C. 1983 for violating its rights to procedural due process, substantive due process, and equal protection by filing the Subdivision Plats without its consent and over its objection. The court held that these allegations satisfied the standard for official municipal policy under Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati and the district court erred in finding otherwise.The court also held that the district court erred in determining that the city manager was entitled to the protection of qualified immunity at the Rule 12(b)(6) stage. Finally, the court held that Cherry Knoll's well-pleaded factual allegations and supporting documents make plausible its claim that HDR was a "willful participant in joint action" for purposes of section 1983. Accordingly, the court remanded the matter and reinstated Cherry Knoll's state law claims. View "Cherry Knoll, LLC v. Jones" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff's complaint against her former employers, alleging that she was fired because of her sexual orientation (heterosexual) and Defendant Huber's reaction to plaintiff's pro-heterosexual speech. Plaintiff, the manager of PNP's human resources department, made a Facebook post criticizing a man wearing a dress and noting his ability to use the women's bathroom and/or dressing room.The court held that plaintiff's Title VII retaliation claim failed because Title VII does not protect against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and, even if it did, the district court did not err in finding that plaintiff could not have reasonably believed discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation was a prohibited practice. The court also held that the district court correctly dismissed the state claim because none of defendants were state actors and were therefore not covered by the the restrictions of Article 1, section 7 of the Louisiana constitution. View "O'Daniel v. Industrial Service Solutions" on Justia Law

This appeal arose from the district court's 2017 decision to grant "provisional" unitary status to the school system in the area of facilities. The district court set a two-year year probationary period, during which it would retain jurisdiction over that aspect of the desegregation order and the school district would face semiannual compliance reviews. At the end of the two years, the district court would then consider an "unconditional" grant of unitary status in facilities. The school board appealed.The court held that the Youngblood procedure, requiring a probationary period before final dismissal of a desegregation case, is a longstanding practice in this circuit. The court rejected the school board's legal challenge to the Youngblood procedure and held that a district court has long had discretion to impose a Youngblood period, and the school board cited nothing that would allow the court to depart from this settled law. The court also held that the district court did not clearly err by determining that the school board came up a bit short of demonstrating good faith compliance and that a two year probationary period was necessary in this case. View "Moore v. Tangipahoa Parish School Board" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment to prison officials in his 42 U.S.C. 1983 action for excessive force, failure to intervene, deliberate indifference, and retaliation claims arising from use of force during his confinement.Liberally construing plaintiff's appellate contentions and reviewing de novo, the Fifth Circuit held that Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), and its progeny did not bar plaintiff's excessive force claims. In this case, plaintiffs excessive force claims implicated neither the validity of his underlying conviction nor the duration of his sentence. In regard to whether defendants were entitled to qualified immunity, the court held that there was a genuine dispute of material fact concerning what occurred during the use of force. Therefore, the court remanded for further consideration. View "Bourne v. Gunnels" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against defendants, alleging unconstitutional censorship on the Hunt County Sheriff's Office (HCSO) Facebook page. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff's claims against the individual defendants because the only claims against the individual defendants were plaintiff's individual-capacity claims for monetary damages and her official-capacity claims for equitable relief, which she did not appeal.However, the court vacated the dismissal of plaintiff's claims against Hunt County, because plaintiff sufficiently pleaded an official policy of viewpoint discrimination on the HCSO Facebook page. In this case, the complaint alleged that Hunt County had an explicit policy of viewpoint discrimination on the HCSO Facebook page. The court also held that, to the extent the district court determined that plaintiff's declaratory judgment claims against Hunt County were redundant of her claims for injunctive relief, this conclusion was inconsistent with the purposes of the Declaratory Judgment Act and therefore an abuse of discretion. Furthermore, plaintiff's request for declaratory relief was not duplicative of her claims for compensatory damages. Finally, the court vacated the district court's preliminary injunction order and remanded for further proceedings. View "Robinson v. Hunt County" on Justia Law