Designated for publication
- Spikes v. McVea, 19-30019, appeal from E.D. La.
- Higginbotham, J. (Higginbotham, Smith, Dennis), Smith, J., dissenting; prisoner suit, qualified immunity
- Affirming district court’s denial of qualified-immunity-based summary judgment in favor of defendant prison medical staff members, on prisoner plaintiff’s claim of an Eighth Amendment violation arising from deliberate indifference for six weeks to plaintiff’s severely fractured hip.
- The Court laid out the legal backdrop for its analysis: “The Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment obligates the government to provide medical care for those whom it is punishing by incarceration because the failure to do so would result in pain and suffering which no one suggests would serve any penological purpose. Finding a violation of the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment also requires a two-step inquiry. First, Spikes must show that he was exposed to a substantial risk of serious harm. Second, he must show that “prison officials acted or failed to act with deliberate indifference to that risk. … [T]he test for deliberate indifference is subjective recklessness, permit[ting] a finding of recklessness only when a person disregards a risk of harm of which he is aware. Disregard is evidenced by a prison official’s failure to respond[] reasonably to a known risk. Therefore, a prison official acts or fails to act with deliberate indifference only if (A) he knows that inmates face a substantial risk of serious bodily harm and (B) he disregards that risk by failing to take reasonable measures to abate it.” (Internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
- The Court first examined the facts in the record and found that “a jury could infer that Nurses Bowman and Wheat were subjectively aware that treatment for a muscle strain had proved to be ineffective and Spikes faced a far more serious risk”; and that “a reasonable factfinder could similarly infer from the circumstances that Dr. McVea knew there was a substantial risk of harm to Spikes’s health that was not being addressed.”
- The Court then held that “we have recognized that an official is deliberately indifferent to a prisoner’s serious medical need when he delays treatment with responses so cursory or minimal that they cause unnecessary suffering. … Spikes’s obvious health risk was met with cursory treatment and delayed access to needed medical care, conduct that could rise to the level of deliberate indifference.”
- Judge Smith dissented. He would find that “Supreme Court precedent … clearly established that [defendants’] actions were constitutional.”
- U.S. v. Escajeda, 19-50481, appeal from W.D. Tex.
- Jolly, J. (Jolly, Haynes, Oldham), criminal, guilty plea
- Affirming conviction on three drug distribution charges and being a felon in possession of a firearm, holding that the factual basis to which he agreed was sufficient to support the conspiracy drug distribution charge; remanding for the limited purpose of conforming written judgment to orally pronounced sentence.
- The Court held that, although a drug distribution conspiracy charge may not be based on controlled buys from a government informant, in this case there was sufficient circumstantial evidence within the factual basis beyond the controlled buys to support a conspiracy conviction.
- Petrobras America, Inc. v. Samsung Heavy Industries Co., 20-20338, appeal from S.D. Tex.
- per curiam (Elrod, Willett, Engelhardt), fraud, timeliness
- Reversing district court’s 12(b)(6) dismissal of plaintiff’s fraud claims as time-barred, finding that pleadings do not establish as a matter of law that plaintiff had actual or constructive notice of its injury prior to March 2015, and remanding for further proceedings.
- The Court held that the four-year statute of limitations for RICO and for the Texas state-law fraud claims did not begin to run until the plaintiff completed an internal audit of the drilling services contract with the defendant, in May 2015. The Court rejected defendant’s argument that plaintiff had at least constructive knowledge as early as 2007, when it entered into the contract, or at least by 2014, when a news story broke about the defendant’s participation in fraudulent schemes involving projects similar to the one it was engaged in with plaintiff.
Unpublished
- U.S. v. Moreno, 19-20627, appeal from S.D. Tex.
- per curiam (Davis, Jones, Elrod), criminal
- Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
- U.S. v. Lambright, 19-41054, appeal from E.D. Tex.
- per curiam (Smith, Stewart, Graves), criminal
- Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
- Loayza v. Garland, 19-60393, petition for review of BIA order
- per curiam (Smith, Clement, Oldham), immigration
- Dismissing appeal as moot, where BIA granted petitioner the relief he sought from the Court.
- U.S. v. Zapata, 20-10258, appeal from N.D. Tex.
- per curiam (Jones, Duncan, Engelhardt), criminal, First Step Act
- Dismissing as frivolous appeal from denial of motion for sentence reduction under the First Step Act.
- U.S. v. Byrd, 20-10923, appeal from N.D. Tex.
- per curiam (Davis, Jones, Elrod), criminal
- Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
- U.S. v. Cedillo, 20-11094, appeal from N.D. Tex.
- per curiam (Southwick, Oldham, Wilson), criminal, search and seizure
- Affirming conviction of possession with the intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine, upholding district court’s denial of motion to suppress.
- Prescott v. Plybol, 20-40254, appeal from E.D. Tex.
- per curiam (Jones, Duncan, Engelhardt), prisoner suit
- Affirming in part and reversing in part district court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s § 1983 claims, and remanding for further proceedings.
- U.S. v. Ware, 20-40391, appeal from E.D. Tex.
- per curiam (Southwick, Oldham, Wilson), criminal, guilty plea
- Affirming conviction of possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine near a playground, holding that there was sufficient factual basis on which to base defendant’s guilty plea.
- U.S. v. Serna, 20-40845, appeal from S.D. Tex.
- per curiam (Higginbotham, Higginson, Duncan), criminal, compassionate release
- Affirming district court’s denial of motion for compassionate release.
- Sukotjo v. Garland, 20-60485, petition for review of BIA order
- per curiam (Southwick, Oldham, Wilson), immigration
- Dismissing in part and denying in part Indonesian citizen’s petition for review of BIA order denying motion for reconsideration and reopening.
- U.S. v. McDougal, 20-61073, appeal from S.D. Miss.
- per curiam (Jones, Southwick, Engelhardt), criminal, supervised release
- Affirming imposition of supervised release condition as part of revocation sentence.
- U.S. v. Miller, 20-61113, appeal from N.D. Miss.
- per curiam (Southwick, Oldham, Wilson), criminal, compassionate release
- Affirming district court’s denial of motion for compassionate release.
- U.S. v. Lario-Rios, 21-40052, appeal from S.D. Tex.
- per curiam (Smith, Stewart, Willett), criminal, sentencing
- Affirming 45-month sentence on conviction for illegal reentry.
- U.S. v. Nunez, 21-40075, appeal from S.D. Tex.
- per curiam (Davis, Jones, Elrod), criminal
- Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
Take the Fifth 