US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Opinions
 Waxler Marine, LLC v. Aris T M/V

Docket: 17-30805
Opinion Date: August 29, 2018
Judge: Carl E. Stewart
Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Admiralty & Maritime Law

After a marine accident that resulted in damages estimated to exceed $60 million, Valero, Shell and Motiva asked the court to resolve whether the excess insurers of one of the involved vessels may limit their liability to that of the insured vessel. The district court held that the Protection and Indemnity policy covering the vessel has a Crown Zellerbach clause thereby permitting the excess insurers to limit their liability to that of the insured vessel. The Fifth Circuit dismissed the appeal based on lack of appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1292(a)(3), holding that the district court's Order and Reasons failed to determine the rights and liabilities of the parties. The court found no compelling reason to distinguish between a district court's determination of a contractual entitlement rather than statutory entitlement to limit liability. The court joined the Eleventh Circuit in holding that neither decision was reviewable on appeal under section 1292(a)(3).

Read Opinion

US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Opinions
Renwick v. P N K Lake Charles, LLC

Docket: 17-30767
Opinion Date: August 27, 2018
Judge: Stuart Kyle Duncan
Areas of Law: Personal Injury

After plaintiff was injured when he fell off a defective ladder between a casino vessel and hotel owned by PNK, he filed suit against PNK for damages under Louisiana law. The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment to PNK and held that genuine fact issues exist as to whether PNK may be liable for plaintiff's injuries. The court held that a reasonable fact finder could conclude that PNK expressly or impliedly authorized the particular manner which rendered the work unsafe. The court also held that plaintiff's possible negligence before using the defective ladder could be taken into account, not as a complete bar to recovery via summary judgment, but rather through comparative fault principles. Furthermore, there were genuine issues as to whether the risk posed by the defective ladder was unreasonable under Louisiana law. The court rejected PNK's alternative argument and remanded for further proceedings.

Read Opinion

Miraglia v. Board of Supervisors of the Louisiana State Museum

Docket: 17-30834
Opinion Date: August 24, 2018
Judge: Catharina Haynes
Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law

Plaintiff filed suit against the Museum, alleging discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act, and seeking equitable relief and damages. Plaintiff, a quadriplegic with cerebral palsy who uses a wheelchair, alleged that the Lower Pontalba Building was not accessible. The Museum subsequently purchased portable ramps, buzzers, and buzzer-related signage. The Fifth Circuit dismissed plaintiff's appeal of the district court's dismissal of his equitable claims as moot. The court held that plaintiff failed to prove a necessary element for monetary damages, and thus the court reversed and rendered judgment in favor of the Museum in regard to that claim. However, the court held that plaintiff was still a prevailing party and affirmed the district court's grant of attorneys' fees.

Read Opinion

US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Opinions
United States v. Martinez

Docket: 17-20230
Opinion Date: August 21, 2018
Judge: Carl E. Stewart
Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for various immigration crimes stemming from his participation in efforts to recruit and retain undocumented immigrants for employment at WMI in Houston. The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support defendant's conviction for conspiring to hire and for aiding and abetting in hiring undocumented aliens, for conspiracy to encourage or induce unlawful aliens to reside in the United States; and for aiding and abetting aggravated identity theft.

Read Opinion

Samples v. Vadzemnieks

Docket: 17-20350
Opinion Date: August 17, 2018
Judge: Higginbotham
Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law

The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of summary judgment to a law enforcement officer based on qualified immunity in a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action alleging that he used excessive force when he tased plaintiff. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to show that the officer violated plaintiff's Fourth Amendment right to be free of excessive force. However, the officer's actions did not violate law that was clearly established at the time of the incident. In Caroll v. Ellington, and in this case, officers confronted a suspect whom they believed to be on drugs, attempted to verbally secure the suspect's compliance, and chose to deploy a taser despite their knowledge that the suspect was unarmed. The Carroll panel decided that no clearly established law made the officer's decision to resort to the taser unreasonable.

Read Opinion

Glass v. Paxton

Docket: 17-50641
Opinion Date: August 16, 2018
Judge: Leslie Southwick
Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of claims brought by University of Texas professors challenging a Texas law permitting the concealed carry of handguns on campus and a corresponding University policy prohibiting professors from banning such weapons in their classrooms. The court held that plaintiffs lacked standing to bring a First Amendment claim and rejected their claim of "standing based on their self-imposed censoring of classroom discussion caused by their fear of the possibility of illegal activity by persons not joined in this lawsuit." The court held that none of the cited evidence alleged a certainty that a license-holder would illegally brandish a firearm in a classroom, and thus the alleged harm was not certainly impending. The court also held that plaintiffs' claim that the Campus Carry Law and University policy violated the Second Amendment because firearm usage in their presence was not sufficiently "well regulated" was foreclosed by precedent. Finally, the court rejected plaintiffs' claim that the law and policy violated their right to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment because the University lacks a rational basis for determining where students can or cannot concealed-carry handguns on campus. The court held that plaintiffs failed to address Texas's arguments concerning rational basis.

Read Opinion

United States v. Ponce-Flores

Docket: 17-40807
Opinion Date: August 14, 2018
Judge: Jennifer Walker Elrod
Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence after he pleaded guilty to being unlawfully present in the United States after removal following his conviction for an aggravated felony. The court held that the district court did not plainly erred by applying a 10 level sentencing enhancement under USSG 2L1.2(b)(2)(A) based on an aggregate sentence of five years.

Read Opinion

​US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

O'Donnell v. Harris County

Docket: 18-20466
Opinion Date: August 14, 2018
Judge: Jerry Edwin Smith
Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

The Fifth Circuit granted a motion for stay pending appeal brought by fourteen judges in a class action against Harris County and its officials under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that the County's system of setting bail for indigent misdemeanor arrestees violates Texas statutory and constitutional law and the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court entered a stay of Sections 7, 8, 9, and 16 pending plenary resolution of this appeal by a merits panel. In this case, the expansive injunction entered on remand repeated the mistake of the original injunction because it amounted to the outright elimination of secured bail for indigent misdemeanor arrestees.

Read Opinion

National City Golf Finance v. Scott

Docket: 17-60283
Opinion Date: August 9, 2018
Judge: Stephen Andrew Higginson
Areas of Law: Civil Procedure

Defendant moved to rescind a settlement from a lawsuit about golf carts and to vacate the dismissal under state contract law. The Fifth Circuit held that the district court did not have jurisdiction to resolve the motion on state law terms because the parties' unconditional dismissal deprived it of subject matter jurisdiction. The court explained that, to reopen this case, defendant must lean on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 60(b), but that Rule 60(b)'s six grounds to relieve a party from a final judgment, order, or proceeding were unavailable to defendant.

Read Opinion

United States v. Gurrola

Docket: 17-50325
Opinion Date: August 2, 2018
Judge: W. Eugene Davis
Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for three counts of conspiracy to kill in a foreign country and four counts of conspiracy to cause travel in foreign commerce in the commission of murder-for-hire. Defendant was the leader of the Velasco Gurrola Criminal Enterprise (VCE). The court held that defendant's Sixth Amendment rights were not violated during voir dire; the court rejected defendant's evidentiary rulings on hearsay objections; the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the government's evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 403; the district court did not err by denying defendant's motion for a judgment of acquittal and/or a new trial where the government presented ample proof of overt acts supporting all seven convictions; the district court's omission of an explicit overt act instruction was not plain error; the court declined to invoke the cumulative error doctrine; and the district court did not err by amending the final restitution order more than 90 days after the sentencing hearing.

Read Opinion

​US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Opinions

​Seals v. McBee

Docket: 17-30667
Opinion Date: August 3, 2018
Judge: Jerry E. Smith
Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's partial summary judgment in favor of plaintiff in an action challenging Louisiana Revised Statutes 14:122 as unconstitutionally overbroad in violation of the First Amendment. Louisiana Revised Statutes 14:122 criminalizes "the use of violence, force, or threats" on any public officer or employee with the intent to influence the officer's conduct in relation to his position. After determining that plaintiff had Article III standing to bring his claims, the court held that section 14:122 was unconstitutionally overbroad because the meaning of "threat" was broad enough to sweep in threats to take lawful, peaceful actions, such as threats to sue a police officer or challenge an incumbent officeholder.

Read Opinion

US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Opinions
​
Thomas v. Vannoy

Docket: 17-30178
Opinion Date: August 2, 2018
Judge: Higginbotham
Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law

The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's grant of habeas relief to petitioner. The court held that the Louisiana Supreme Court's resolution of petitioner's Fifth Amendment double jeopardy claim on direct appeal was contrary to, or reflected an unreasonable application of, clearly established law. In this case, the state court did not contravene clearly established federal law under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act's relitigation bar by not applying Price v. Georgia. Furthermore, the state court did not misapply the framework established by Price and Morris v. Mathews. The court also held that the Louisiana Supreme Court did not unreasonably apply Strickland v. Washington in holding that petitioner was not prejudiced by his counsel's failure to quash his jeopardy-barred charge. The court denied as moot respondant’s Unopposed Second Motion to Expedite Appeal.

Read Opinion

US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Opinions
Redburn v. City of Victoria

Docket: 17-40369
Opinion Date: August 1, 2018
Judge: James L. Dennis
Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Real Estate & Property Law

The Fifth Circuit vacated the district court's grant of summary judgment in an action brought by a landowner against the City over the City's use of his residential property to drain and filter storm-sewer runoff. The court held that there were disputed factual issues as to whether the City had an easement over the landowner's land and he was entitled to a declaratory judgment and monetary damages. The court also held that, even if the City has an easement, there was a disputed factual issue regarding whether the City must accommodate the landowner's use of his property by installing subsurface drain pipes as it has done elsewhere in the City. The court held that the landowner's Fifth Amendment takings claim was time-barred and affirmed the district court's judgment as to this claim.

Read Opinion

US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Opinions
United States v. Chhay Lim

Docket: 17-30469
Opinion Date: July 31, 2018
Judge: Jerry Edwin Smith
Areas of Law: Criminal Law

Defendant conditionally pleaded guilty of possession of a firearm by an illegal alien and then appealed his pre-plea rulings denying his motions to dismiss the indictment, to admit evidence relevant to his immigration status, and to suppress evidence. After determining that defendant had preserved all his appellate rights, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's refusal to dismiss the indictment because an illegal alien must first refute that status before obtaining a firearm. The court affirmed the district court's refusal to admit evidence of his immigration status because the evidence he sought to introduce was irrelevant and potentially confusing to a jury. The court affirmed in part and reversed in part the denial of the motion to suppress, holding that an exigency existed only as to the pistol discovered in the bedroom, but not as to the rifle in the laundry room. Finally, the court vacated defendant's conviction where defendant's pre-Miranda answers should have been excluded, and remanded to allow defendant the option to withdraw his guilty plea.

Read Opinion