Designated for publication
- Daves v. Dallas County, Texas, 18-11368, appeal from N.D. Tex.
- per curiam (en banc court, except for Oldham, J., recused), cash bail, § 1983, Equal Protection, Due Process, sovereign immunity, Ex Parte Young
- Voting to rehear en banc this matter where, on December 28, 2020, the panel of Judges Southwick, Graves, and Engelhardt (Southwick, J., authoring) affirmed a preliminary injunction against imposition of cash bail on indigent arrestees as unconstitutional, with modifications to injunction to not apply to criminal district court judges and to exclude injunction of sheriff from enforcing bail requirements; and remanded for further proceedings.
- In re: Harris, 19-51045, on motion to authorize W.D. Tex. to consider successive § 2255 petition
- per curiam (Higginbotham, Smith, Oldham), Oldham, J., concurring; habeas corpus
- Granting authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion challenging petitioner’s conviction and sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A) for using and possessing a destructive device during and in relation to a crime of violence, where petitioner “intends to argue that his conviction should be vacated because the predicate offense for his conviction, arson in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 844(i), qualified as a ‘crime of violence’ only under the residual clause in § 924(c)(3)(B), which pursuant to United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319, 2325–26, 2336 (2019), is unconstitutionally vague.”
- Court held that petitioner had made a prima facie showing of possible merit, though that authorization was “tentative” because “the district court must dismiss the motion without reaching its merits if the court determines that Harris has failed to satisfy the requirements of § 2255(h).”
- Judge Oldham concurred, pointing to the tension in the question of whether the Supreme Court decision in Davis had properly been made retroactive where that issue had only been resolved by multiple Fifth Circuit decisions and was not necessarily evident from the Supreme Court’s own jurisprudence.
Unpublished
- Speer v. Lumpkin, 13- 70001, appeal from E.D. Tex.
- per curiam (Jones, Stewart, Costa), habeas corpus, ineffective assistance of counsel
- Affirming district court ruling that Speer could not establish prejudice from any failure by counsel to adequately investigate mitigation evidence.
- Martinez v. City of North Richland Hills, 20-10521, appeal from N.D. Tex.
- per curiam (Haynes, Duncan, Engelhardt), § 1983, qualified immunity
- Affirming dismissal of plaintiff’s § 1983 claims for refusal to provide medical treatment and other claims arising from her fracturing of her hip and femur while in custody due to an epileptic seizure suffered after telling the booking officers that she required epilepsy medication, on qualified immunity grounds and for failure to state a claim.
- Trujillo v. Volt Management Corp., 20-50526, appeal from W.D. Tex.
- per curiam (Jolly, Elrod, Graves), arbitration, employment. discrimination
- Affirming order compelling arbitration of claim by employee for failure to provide reasonable accommodations and retaliatory termination.
- U.S. v. Escarcega, 20-50722, appeal from W.D. Tex.
- per curiam (Davis, Stewart, Dennis), criminal, sentencing
- Granting summary affirmance of within-guidelines sentence of 30 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release imposed following defendant’s guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry after removal from the United States.
- U.S. v. Mendoza-Batres, 20-50723, appeal from W.D. Tex.
- per curiam (Davis, Stewart, Dennis), criminal, sentencing
- Granting summary affirmance of sentence of 27 months in prison and three years of supervised release, which the district court imposed following defendant’s guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry.
- U.S. v. Galvez-Martinez, 20-50757, appeal from W.D. Tex.
- per curiam (King, Smith, Wilson), criminal, sentencing
- Granting summary affirmance of within-guidelines sentence imposed following defendant’s guilty plea for illegal reentry after removal from the United States, and of revocation of supervised release.
- U.S. v. Chavez-Portillo, 20-50866, appeal from W.D. Tex.
- per curiam (Jolly, Elrod, Graves), criminal, sentencing
- Granting summary affirmance of within-guidelines sentence of 21 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release imposed following defendant’s guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry after removal from the United States.
Take the Fifth 