July 1-5, 2022, opinions

Posted on by tadbartlett

Designated for publication

  • Guijarro v. Enterprise Holdings, Inc., 21-40512, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • Costa, J. (Richman, Costa, Ho), personal tort
    • Affirming denial of remand to state court, and dismissal of claims against car rental company arising from car accident involving Jeep rented to plaintiffs by defendant.
    • As to removal jurisdiction, the Court held first that the district court did not err in finding that it was facially apparent from the complaint that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000. The complaint alleged injuries from a serious car accident in which the Jeep tumbled and struck a concrete culvert, coming to rest face down with the rear wheels in the air, and the alleged damages included medical expenses, physical disfigurement, physical pain and mental anguish, loss of earning capacity, punitive damages, treble damages under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and attorneys’ fees. “Common sense dictates that such damages would exceed $75,000 for at least one plaintiff,” and the Court noted evidence presented by the defendant of medical bills exceeding the amount-in-controversy.
    • The Court then held that non-diverse defendants added by amended complaint did not destroy diversity because she had no plausible claim against the non-diverse defendants.
    • On the merits, the Court held that the plaintiff failed to produce expert evidence that a particular defect in the Jeep’s brakes caused the accident and that also excluded all other plausible causes of the accident.
  • Vote.org v. Callanen, 22-50536, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • Jones, J. (Jones, Duncan, Engelhardt), election law, standing
    • Granting stay pending appeal of district court’s permanent injunction of Texas Election Code provision “that, in practice, makes useless the web application [plaintiff] developed to allow Texas voters to register electronically.” The provision at issue required that registration applications that are submitted by fax must be followed by delivery of the original application with an original “wet” signature to the registrar’s office within four days. Vote.org argued that the wet signature requirement violated the 1964 Civil Rights Act because the requirement was immaterial to qualification to vote, and that it violated the right to vote under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
    • The Court held that Vote.org lacks standing because (1) it did not seek to vindicate its own rights, but those of hypothetical future voters; and (2) it did not fit within the prudential exception for third-party standing because the hypothetical relationship with prospective users of their app was too remote and speculative. The Court also held that Vote.org lacked statutory standing under § 1983 as a third-party to the rights it sought to enforce.
    • The Court also held that the wet signature requirement did not impose a barrier to exercise of the right to vote, as there were other means to register besides following up a faxed registration with an original application, and because the statute required that registrars provide an opportunity to cure to those who failed to follow up a faxed registration with a wet signature original. The Court also held that any burden imposed by the wet signature requirement was minimal at most, and that it was justified to ensure attestation by the voter of the conditions of his qualification to vote.

Unpublished

  • U.S. v. Garcia-Hernandez, 16-29631, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (King, Dennis, Costa), criminal, sentencing
    • On remand from U.S. Supreme Court, remanding to district court to reconsider sentence for illegal reentry in light of Borden v. U.S.
  • U.S. v. Rafiq, 20-11168, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • Southwick, J. (Smith, Wiener, Southwick), habeas corpus, ineffective assistance of counsel
    • Affirming denial of habeas relief on petitioner’s IAC claim regarding advice as to the removal consequence of his guilty plea to conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance.
  • Haynes v. Turner Bass & Associates, 20-40787, appeal from E.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Southwick, Oldham, Wilson), sanctions
    • Vacating district court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s pro se complaint as sanction for failing to timely respond to notices from court, and remanding for further proceedings.
  • Long v. Garland, 20-60475, petition for review of BIA order
    • per curiam (Jolly, Willett, Engelhardt), immigration
    • Dismissing Cambodian citizen’s petition for review of BIA order affirming denial by the immigration judge (IJ) of his motion to reopen his removal proceedings and denying his motion to remand his case to the IJ.
  • U.S. v. Rodriguez, 21-10812, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Wiener, Dennis, Haynes), criminal, guilty plea, sentencing
    • Affirming district court’s denial of motion to withdraw guilty plea to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of a mixture and substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine; and dismissing appeal of 480-month sentence.
  • U.S. v. Whitfield, 21-11139, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Jolly, Willett, Engelhardt), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming 78-month sentence on conviction of possession of a firearm by a felon.
  • U.S. v. Duran, 21-11189, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Southwick, Oldham, Wilson), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • Jackson v. Wilson, 21-30142, appeal from W.D. La.
    • per curiam (Smith, Stewart, Graves), default judgment
    • Affirming denial of default judgment and affirming 12(b)(6) dismissal of claims.
  • Collett v. Weyerhauser Co., 21-30449, appeal from E.D. La.
    • per curiam (Jolly, Smith, Engelhardt), personal tort
    • Affirming summary judgment dismissal of plaintiff’s claims arising from application of herbicide to commercial forest land across the street from her residence.
  • Allen v. U.S. Postal Service, 21-30699, appeal from E.D. La.
    • per curiam (Clement, Graves, Costa), employment discrimination, Americans with Disabilities Act
    • Affirming dismissal of plaintiff’s ADA and disability discrimination claims against Postal Service.
  • U.S. v. Reddix, 21-30727, appeal from W.D. La.
    • per curiam (Smith, Stewart, Graves), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming 120-month sentence on conviction of possession of firearms by a convicted felon.
  • Jump v. Rory McFarland Estate, 21-30729, appeal from W.D. La.
    • per curiam (Higginbotham, Haynes, Wilson), mineral law
    • Affirming partial summary judgment in in decades-long dispute over mineral rights.
  • U.S. v. Atkinson, 21-40470, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Southwick, Oldham, Wilson), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming conviction and sentence arising from defendant’s embezzlement of money from school districts.
  • U.S. v. Arenas-Cepeda, 21-40865, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (King, Costa, Ho), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • Lopez v. Martinez, 21-50317, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Jones, Duncan, Engelhardt), forfeiture
    • Dismissing appeal from dismissal of claims collaterally attacking order of civil forfeiture.
  • Fonseca v. University Medical Center, 21-50454, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Davis, Jones, Elrod), prisoner suit
    • Affirming dismissal of prisoner’s suit regarding medical care.
  • U.S. v. Moreno, 21-50478, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (King, Costa, Ho), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming sentence on conviction of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and methamphetamine.
  • U.S. v. Caballero, 21-50765, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Jolly, Willett, Engelhardt), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • Escamilla v. Elliott, 21-50931, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Smith, Wiener, Southwick), employment discrimination
    • Affirming dismissal of plaintiff’s § 1981 claims of racial discrimination.
  • U.S. v. Mireles, 21-51162, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Smith, Stewart, Graves), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • Munoz-Morales v. Garland, 21-60030, petition for review of BIA order
    • per curiam (Davis, Jones, Elrod), immigration
    • Dismissing in part and denying in part Honduran citizen’s petition for review of BIA order dismissing her appeal from the denial of her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture.
  • Morales-Sanchez v. Garland, 21-60104, petition for review of BIA order
    • per curiam (Wiener, Dennis, Haynes), immigration
    • Denying in part and dismissing in part Honduran citizen’s petition for review of BIA order dismissing her appeal of the immigration judge’s (IJ) order denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the CAT.
  • Singh v. Garland, 21-60149, petition for review of BIA order
    • per curiam (Jolly, Willett, Engelhardt), immigration
    • Denying in part and dismissing in part Indian citizen’s petition for review of BIA order dismissing his appeal from a decision of the Immigration Judge (IJ) concluding that he was ineligible for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the CAT.
  • Bermeo-Herrera v. Garland, 21-60174, petition for review of BIA order
    • per curiam (King, Costa, Ho), immigration
    • Denying in part and dismissing in part Ecuadoran citizen’s petition for review of BIA order dismissing his appeal from the order of the Immigration Judge (IJ) denying his motion to reopen sua sponte.
  • Reyes v. Garland, 21-60235, petition for review of BIA order
    • per curiam (Smith, Stewart, Graves), immigration
    • Denying in part and dismissing in part Salvadoran citizens’ petition for review of BIA order affirming, without an opinion, the decision of the immigration judge (IJ) denying asylum and withholding of removal.
  • Tabora-Mejia v. Garland, 21-60262, petition for review of BIA order
    • per curiam (Jolly, Willett, Engelhardt), immigration
    • Denying in part and dismissing in part Honduran citizen’s petition for review of BIA order affirming without opinion immigration judge’s (IJ) order denying their application for asylum and withholding of removal.
  • Ning-Kum v. Garland, 21-60520, petition for review of BIA order
    • per curiam (Wiener, Dennis, Haynes), immigration
    • Denying Cameroonian citizen’s petition for review of BIA order dismissing her appeal from an order of the immigration judge (IJ) concluding that she was ineligible for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the CAT.
  • Noor v. Garland, 21-60594, petition for review of BIA order
    • per curiam (Smith, Stewart, Graves), immigration
    • Denying Bangladeshi citizen’s petition for review of BIA order denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the CAT.
  • Mohedano v. Garland, 21-60595, petition for review of BIA order
    • per curiam (Smith, Stewart, Graves), immigration
    • Denying Mexican citizen’s petition for review of BIA order dismissing his appeal of an order of the immigration judge (I.J.) concluding that he was ineligible for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the CAT.
  • U.S. v. Bookman, 22-10030, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Smith, Stewart, Graves), criminal, sentencing
    • Granting summary affirmance of sentence imposed on revocation of supervised release.
  • U.S. v. Morillon-Cordero, 22-40032, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (King, Costa, Ho), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.