June 30, 2022, opinions

Posted on by tadbartlett

Designated for publication

  • South Central Houston Action Council v. Oak Baptist Church, 21-20559, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • Jones, J. (Jones, Elrod, Higginson), bankruptcy, magistrate jurisdiction
    • Vacating affirmance of summary judgment entered by bankruptcy court, where on appeal to district court the district court had referred the bankruptcy appeal to a magistrate with the parties’ consent. The Court held that, “notwithstanding the broad latitude for referring matters to magistrate judges …, the statute governing appeals from bankruptcy appeals, 28 U.S.C. § 158, plainly and solely allows appeals to be taken either to (i) the District Court or (ii) to a panel of bankruptcy judges.” (Internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Remanding to district court.
  • Anderson v. City of New Orleans, 21-30072, appeal from E.D. La.
    • Barksdale, J. (Barksdale, Stewart, Dennis), Rule 60(B), prisoner suit
    • Affirming denial of City’s Rule 60(B)(5) motion to alter judgment on the basis that changed circumstances rendered prior orders no longer equitable, in long-running litigation arising out of alleged unconstitutional conditions at the Orleans Parish Prison.
    • The Court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the City’s Rule 60(B)(5) motion on the basis that the PLRA had not changed subsequent to the 2019 orders underlying the motion and therefore did not present a “changed condition.”
  • Leonard v. Martin, 21-30475, appeal from M.D. La.
    • Jones, J. (Jones, Haynes, Costa), Haynes, J., dissenting; subpoena, mandamus
    • Dismissing third-party subpoena target’s appeal from denial of motion to quash for lack of appellate jurisdiction, and denying alternative petition for writ of mandamus.
    • In personal injury claim arising from a car accident, defendant subpoenaed the anesthesiologist and pain-management specialist who had treated plaintiff, seeking records for all patients in prior ten years who the doctor had recommended undergo the procedure recommended for plaintiff. The magistrate had granted the doctor’s motion to quash in part and denied it in part, narrowing the scope of patient records that would need to be produced. The district court upheld that order.
    • The Court held “that an order denying this nonparty’s motion to quash is not reviewable under the collateral order doctrine.” As to the alternative remedy of mandamus, the Court held, “Although we are concerned that the district court may have erred in denying Turnipseed’s motion to quash, Turnipseed nevertheless fails to demonstrate a clear and indisputable right to a writ of mandamus.”
    • Judge Haynes dissented. She would have held that the collateral order doctrine did provide appellate jurisdiction, and that a writ of mandamus also would have been appropriate to provide “relied from the district court’s clearly and indisputably erroneous discovery order.”
  • Carnegie Technologies, L.L.C. v. Triller, Inc., 21-50912, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • Wilson, J. (Higginbotham, Haynes, Wilson), breach of contract, novation
    • Affirming district court’s judgment that promissory note in favor of company, owed by another company in which the first company had an ownership interest, was valid and had not been novated in sale of the second company.

Unpublished

  • Sanchez-Thomas v. Garland, 20-60573, petition for review of BIA order
    • per curiam (Higginbotham, Higginson, Duncan), immigration
    • Denying Honduran citizen’s petition for review of BIA order dismissing his appeal from an order of the immigration judge (IJ) concluding that he was ineligible for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the CAT.
  • Rivera-Reyes v. Garland, 20-61188, petition for review of BIA order
    • per curiam (Jolly, Willett, Engelhardt), immigration
    • Denying Honduran citizens’ petition for review of BIA order upholding immigration judge’s (IJ’s) denial of their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture.
  • Wierman v. Prestige Default Services, 21-11285, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Jolly, Willett, Engelhardt), foreclosure
    • Affirming dismissal of borrowers’ claims arising from foreclosure.
  • Smeaton v. Nelson, 21-30140, appeal from W.D. La.
    • per curiam (Higginbotham, Higginson, Duncan), prisoner suit
    • Affirming denial of motion for reconsideration from dismissal of prisoner’s suit.
  • U.S. v. Marshall, 21-30714, appeal from W.D. La.
    • per curiam (Barksdale, Willett, Duncan), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming 120-month sentence on convictions of possession with intent to distribute five grams or more of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1); and possession of a firearm during a drug-trafficking offense.
  • U.S. v. Law, 21-30721, appeal from W.D. La.
    • per curiam (Jolly, Willett, Engelhardt), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming 24-month sentence on revocation of supervised release.
  • U.S. v. Guerrero, 21-40424, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Barksdale, Willett, Duncan), criminal, compassionate release
    • Affirming denial of motion for compassionate release.
  • U.S. v. Fierro, 21-40566, appeal from E.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Jolly, Willett, Engelhardt), criminal, compassionate release
    • Affirming denial of motion for compassionate release.
  • Kennedy v. Pioneer Natural Resources Co., 21-50256, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Jones, Higginson, Duncan), Fair Labor Standards Act, arbitration
    • Affirming denial of defendants’ motion to compel arbitration of FLSA collective action.
  • U.S. v. Granado, 21-50839, c/w 21-50861, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Wiener, Dennis, Haynes), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming consecutive 21-month sentence on revocation of supervised release.
  • U.S. v. Villalobos, 21-50893, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Southwick, Oldham, Wilson), criminal, sentencing
    • Vacating sentence on conviction of attempting to manufacture methamphetamine, and remanding for resentencing.
  • U.S. v. Brown, 21-51056, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Wiener, Dennis, Haynes), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming 60-month sentence on revocation of supervised release.
  • U.S. v. Vasquez, 21-51169, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Davis, Jones, Elrod), criminal, supervised release
    • Affirming condition of supervised release giving probation officer authority to require defendant to provide notice to any person whom the probation officer determines is put at risk by defendant.
  • Lopez-Meraz v. Garland, 21-60144, petition for review of BIA order
    • per curiam (Barksdale, Willett, Duncan), immigration
    • Dismissing in part and denying in part Honduran citizen’s petition for review of BIA denial of motion to reopen.
  • U.S. v. Jones, 21-60883, appeal from S.D. Miss.
    • per curiam (Jolly, Willett, Engelhardt), criminal, sentencing
    • Dismissing appeal of 168-month sentence on conviction of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine.
  • Francois v. Lumpkin, 21-70003, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Dennis, Southwick, Engelhardt), habeas corpus
    • Denying COA from denial of habeas petition.
  • Sylvester v. Rivera-Fulton, 22-30024, appeal from E.D. La.
    • per curiam (Southwick, Oldham, Wilson), bankruptcy
    • Vacating award of fees to bankruptcy trustee, and remanding for further proceedings.