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

Docket: 18-20399
Opinion Date: August 30, 2019
Judge: Kurt D. Engelhardt
Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence for conspiracy to commit healthcare fraud. The court held that the district court did not err by applying a sentencing enhancement under USSG 2B1.1(b)(11)(C)(i) because defendant unlawfully used each of the beneficiaries' Medicare information (indisputably a means of identification) to produce fraudulent health care claims to bill Medicare. The court also held that the district court did not err by applying USSG 2B1.1(b)(2)(A)(i) because his fraud offense involved 10 or more Medicare beneficiaries.

Read Opinion

Cain v. White

Docket: 18-30955
Opinion Date: August 23, 2019
Judge: James Earl Graves, Jr.
Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, Legal Ethics

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.

Read Opinion

US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Opinions
Cole v. Carson

Dockets: 14-10228, 15-10045
Opinion Date: August 20, 2019
Judge: Higginbotham
Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional 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.

Read Opinion

Red-light cameras undermine rule of law

thehill.com/opinion/criminal-justice/457790-red-light-cameras-undermine-rule-of-law

Martinez v. Walgreens Co.

Docket: 18-40636
Opinion Date: August 16, 2019
Judge: Higginbotham
Areas of Law: Personal Injury

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Walgreens in an action alleging that Walgreens negligently gave medication prescribed for another patient to the driver of the car that caused fatal accidents killing himself and another individual. Under Texas law, a pharmacy does not owe a duty of care to third parties injured on the road by a customer who was negligently given someone else's prescription. Looking to the factors the Texas Supreme Court would consider—in particular, the foreseeability of the harm, the presence of other protections, and the danger of interference with the legislature's balancing of public policies—the court held that the Texas Supreme Court would not recognize a duty between a pharmacy and third parties injured as a result of a customer taking the incorrect prescription. The court declined to exercise its discretion to certify the issue to the Texas Supreme Court.

Read Opinion

US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Opinions
McMichael v. Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc.

Docket: 19-60011
Opinion Date: August 13, 2019
Judge: Carl E. Stewart
Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Labor & Employment Law

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.

Read Opinion

United States v. Jones

Docket: 18-30256
Opinion Date: August 12, 2019
Judge: Per Curiam
Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Fifth Circuit vacated and remanded defendants' convictions under 18 U.S.C. 924 in light of the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019), which held that the residual clause of section 924(c) is unconstitutionally vague. The court held that it was plain error to permit the jury to convict defendants of section 924 offenses based on RICO conspiracy as a crime of violence predicate.

Read Opinion

Marks v. Hudson

Docket: 18-20486
Opinion Date: August 8, 2019
Judge: Leslie H. Southwick
Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Family 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.

Read Opinion

Maldonado v. Rodriguez

Docket: 18-40318
Opinion Date: August 6, 2019
Judge: Edith H. Jones
Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Labor & Employment 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.

Read Opinion

US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Opinions
​
Longoria v. Hunter Express, Ltd.

Docket: 17-41042
Opinion Date: August 1, 2019
Judge: Costa
Areas of Law: Personal Injury

Plaintiff filed a negligence action against Hunter Express and its employee after the employee's truck collided into plaintiff's truck, causing him permanent injuries. The jury found defendants fully liable for the accident and awarded plaintiff over $2.8 million in damages. Addressing the grounds for a new trial that defendants did present to the district court, the Fifth Circuit held that, under either Texas sufficiency review or the federal maximum recovery rule, the $1 million award for future physical pain was too high. In this case, pain that can largely be managed through nonprescription methods did not warrant such a sizeable recovery. The court also held that the record did not support any award of future mental anguish where plaintiff's claims failed to rise to the level of a substantial disruption in his routine. Therefore, the court remanded for the district court to determine the amount of remittitur.

Read Opinion