December 17, 2021, opinions

Posted on by tadbartlett

Designated for publication

  • DeOtte v. Nevada, 19-10754, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • Southwick, J. (Higginbotham, Southwick, Engelhardt), Affordable Care Act, Religious Freedom and Restoration Act, mootness, intervention
    • Vacating district court’s injunction of the 2015 rules implementing the contraception mandate of the ACA, in light of Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania, 140 S. Ct. 2367 (2020), in which the Supreme Court overturned other courts’ nationwide injunctions of 2017 rules implementing the contraception mandate that had sought to remedy RFRA infirmities in the 2015 rules.
    • The Court held that the challenge to the 2015 rules was moot, as Little Sisters of the Poor reinstated the 2017 rules that had remedied the defects in the 2015 rules. “The Supreme Court has done the work that Plaintiffs wanted the district court in this case to do, and no appeal to us can change that. Article III’s case-or-controversy requirement is no longer met.”
    • The Court then addressed whether it had jurisdiction to vacate, because the appeal seeking vacatur was pursued by Nevada, which had moved to intervene in the district court but that intervention had been denied. Hence, Nevada was a “non-party” seeking the vacatur relief from the Court of Appeals (in addition, Nevada had appealed the denial of intervention). “We conclude … that even though mootness would remain, there is some life to the case because of the relief the parties are contesting, namely, vacatur. Thus the intervention controversy is still alive because, if it were concluded on appeal that the district court had erred in denying the intervention motion … then the applicant would have standing to seek vacatur of the district court order.” (Internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
    • The Court then held that Nevada had demonstrated the requisite protectable interest to satisfy intervention requirements. “Nevada has established a financial interest in federally mandated contraceptive provision so its state fisc does not have to fill the void if exceptions are carved out of the mandate.”
    • The Court then held that Nevada had appellate standing–measured as of the time of the notice of appeal. “Nevada suffers the preclusive effect of the district-court order with equal force as a party to the lawsuit because of the nationwide scope of the injunction and the resulting inability to relitigate the issue of whether the 2017 Rules violate RFRA.”
  • Singh v. Garland, 19-60937, petition for review of BIA order
    • Duncan, J. (Owen, Clement, Duncan), immigration
    • Denying Indian citizen’s petition for review of BIA order affirming the denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.
    • The Court held that the IJ’s reliance on inter-proceeding evidence in making its credibility finding requires “more than the IJ’s recalling an ’emerging pattern’ from unspecified prior matters. That hardly gives the applicant ‘meaningful’ notice or a ‘reasonable’ chance to rebut the implication that his claims have been cut-and-pasted from someone else’s affidavit.”
    • Nevertheless, the Court held that there was sufficient basis in the record apart from the IJ’s reliance on inter-proceeding evidence to support the adverse credibility finding.
    • The Court also rejected the petitioner’s argument that the IJ’s 100% denial rate over nine years did not equate to impermissible bias. “An IJ’s ‘denial rate’ is no more than a crude summation of the IJ’s prior rulings. This raw statistic cannot of itself show bias in a particular case.”

Unpublished

  • Feemster v. Beard, 19-40815, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Higginbotham, Higginson, Duncan), prisoner suit
    • Affirming summary judgment dismissal of prisoner’s claims of deliberate indifference and violation of the ADA and Rehabilitation Act.
  • Schwarzer v. Wainwright, 19-41011, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Smith, Stewart, Graves), prisoner suit
    • Vacating district court’s dismissal of First Amendment and due process claims as frivolous, and remanding for further proceedings.
  • U.S. v. Rodriguez, 20-40779, appeal from E.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Higginbotham, Higginson, Duncan), criminal, guilty plea
    • Affirming conviction of conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute at least 50 grams of methamphetamine and conspiracy to commit money laundering, finding no plain error in the district court’s acceptance of the factual basis to support the guilty plea.
  • Ponce-Medina v. Garland, 20-60544, petition for review of BIA order
    • per curiam (Smith, Stewart, Graves), immigration
    • Denying Salvadoran citizen’s petition for review of BIA order denying her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.
  • U.S. v. Pena, 21-10228, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Jolly, Willett, Engelhardt), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Tovar, 21-10664, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Wiener, Dennis, Haynes), criminal, compassionate release
    • Affirming denial of motion for compassionate release.
  • U.S. v. Benitez-Mejia, 21-20298, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Higginbotham, Higginson, Duncan), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • Tisdel v. The Witness Protection, 21-20484, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (King, Costa, Ho), jurisdiction
    • Affirming dismissal of suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
  • U.S. v. Mata-Cervantes, 21-40375, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Jolly, Willett, Enghelhardt), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • Debnam v. Salazar, 21-50044, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Stewart, Haynes, Ho), prisoner suit
    • Dismissing for lack of appellate jurisdiction, due to untimely notice of appeal, appeal from dismissal of prisoner’s sec. 1983 suit.
  • U.S. v. Straughn, 21-50079, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Jolly, Willett, Engelhardt), criminal, compassionate release
    • Affirming denial of motion for compassionate release.
  • Berry Contracting, L.P. v. Schmidt, 21-50230, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Higginbotham, Higginson, Duncan), bankruptcy
    • Affirming dismissal of appellants’ claim to determine dischargeability as untimely.