Take the Fifth

Designated for publication

• Ruiz-Perez v. Garland, 20-61133, petition for review of BIA order
  • Smith, J. (Smith, Duncan, Oldham), Oldham, J., dissenting; immigration
  • Denying Mexican citizen’s petition for review of BIA order dismissing appeal of IJ order that IJ lacked jurisdiction to decide application for cancelation of a reinstatement of removal under the Violence Against Women Act.
  • The Court held that, under the rule of orderliness, it was still bound to find that it had jurisdiction over the denial of a cancelation of removal. But it also “flag[ged] … for future litigants” the questions of whether a reinstatement order must be appealed within 30 days of the reinstatement order or if it is merged into subsequent denials of CAT relief or withholding of removal.
  • The Court then held that the BIA did not err in holding that VAWA did not apply to a reinstatement order; and that cancelation of removal is a form of relief forbidden by the reinstatement statute.
  • Judge Oldham dissented. He would hold that the Court did not have jurisdiction over the petition for review of the reinstatement order.

• Crane v. City of Arlington, 21-10644, appeal from N.D. Tex.
  • Higginbotham, J. (Higginbotham, Dennis, Graves), qualified immunity, municipal liability
  • Vacating qualified immunity dismissal of claims against officer who shot driver of vehicle four times while he held him in a chokehold, and vacating dismissal of municipal liability claims against City; but affirming dismissal of bystander-liability and psychological-injury claims of passengers.
  • The Court held that the district court erred in accepting the officer’s version of events on the basis of dashcam video, as the dashcam video did not show what was occurring inside the victim’s car while he was in the officer’s chokehold and being shot by the officer. The Court also held that the officer is not entitled to qualified immunity under the plaintiff’s version of events, as it was plausible that the victim did not intentionally step on the accelerator and put the car into gear but did so inadvertently in the struggle with the officer as he tried to alleviate the pressure on his neck from the chokehold.
  • The Court held that the constitutional violation was clearly established at the time of the incident. It, accordingly, vacated the the summary judgment dismissal of the claims against the officer and the City.
  • The Court then affirmed the dismissal of the passengers’ bystander-liability and psychological-injury claims.

• Denning v. Bond Pharmacy, Inc., 21-30534, appeal from E.D. La.
  • Stewart, J. (Stewart, Clement, Elrod), breach of contract, standing
  • Affirming dismissal of plaintiff’s breach of contract claim against pharmacy for lack of standing, where plaintiff was an insured and was alleging a breach arising from pharmacy’s charging plaintiff’s health insurer $120 per day for unauthorized services.
  • The Court upheld the district court’s holding that plaintiff has suffered no injury and that the breach of contract, alone, was not sufficient injury to satisfy the redressability requirement for standing.

• U.S. v. Cordova-Espinoza, 21-50518, appeal from W.D. Tex.
  • per curiam (King, Duncan, Engelhardt), criminal, search and seizure
  • Affirming conviction of illegal reentry, upholding denial of motion to suppress fruits of hotel room search, where the defendant’s hotel room was opened by the hotel manager in front of DHS agents.
  • The Court held that the opening of the hotel room door by the hotel manager was a private search and therefore not subject to the protections of the Fourth Amendment.

Unpublished

• U.S. v. Senegal,19-40930, appeal from S.D. Tex.
  • per curiam (King, Higginson, Willett), habeas corpus
  • Affirming denial of sec. 2255 petition.

• Bond v. Nueces County, 20-40050, appeal from S.D. Tex.
  • Dennis, J. (Higginbotham, Smith, Dennis), sec. 1983, municipal liability
  • Affirming dismissal of second amended complaint, but vacating denial of motion for leave to amend and remanding for further proceedings.

• US Inventor Inc. v. Vidal, 21-40601, appeal from E.D. Tex.
  • per curiam (King, Elrod, Southwick), patent law, standing
  • Affirming dismissal of patent suit for lack of standing.

• U.S. v. Rodriguez, 21-51209, appeal from W.D. Tex.
  • per curiam (Smith, Dennis, Southwick), criminal
  • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.

• Gau v. Garland, 21-60552, petition for review of BIA order
  • per curiam (Davis, Duncan, Engelhardt), immigration
  • Denying Tanzanian citizen’s petition for review of BIA order denying motion to remand.

• McInnis v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Co., 22-30022, appeal from M.D. La.
  • per curiam (Stewart, Duncan, Wilson), flood insurance
  • Affirming dismissal of homeowner’s suit against flood insurer as time-barred.

• Leone v. School Board of Caddo Parish, 22-30115, appeal from W.D. La.
  • per curiam (Jones, Haynes, Oldham), sec. 1983
  • Affirming dismissal of plaintiff’s suit.

• Brown v. Alixa-RX, 22-40160, appeal from E.D. Tex.
  • per curiam (Higginbotham, Graves, Ho), employment, employment discrimination
  • Affirming dismissal of claims of violation of company policies, fraudulent inducement of employment, hostile work environment, and violations of Texas Penal Code.

• U.S. v. Munoz, 22-50047, appeal from W.D. Tex.
  • per curiam (King, Higginson, Willett), criminal, sufficiency of evidence
  • Affirming conviction of conspiracy with intent to distribute a controlled substance.

• Guillen-Perez v. Garland, 22-60108, petition for review of BIA order
  • per curiam (Jones, Haynes, Oldham), immigration
  • Denying Mexican citizen’s petition for review of BIA order affirming IJ decision that she did not qualify for cancellation of removal.

• Sis v. Garland, 22-60134, petition for review of BIA order
  • per curiam (King, Higginson, Willett), immigration
  • Denying Guatemalan citizens’ petition for review of BIA order denying their applications for asylum and withholding of removal.