March 9-10, 2023, opinions

Posted on by tadbartlett

Designated for publication

  • Ducksworth v. Landrum, 21-60830, appeal from S.D. Miss.
    • Higginbotham, J. (Higginbotham, Higginson, Oldham), Oldham, J., dissenting in part; qualified immunity
    • Dismissing for lack of appellate jurisdiction officers’ appeal of denial of qualified immunity summary judgment on plaintiff’s excessive force claim against one officer, false arrest claim against four officers, and fabrication of evidence claim against another officer, arising from the arrest of the plaintiff at a car wash when he had not broken any law.
    • The Court held that the first officer’s appeal from the denial of summary judgment on the excessive force claim “boils down to a challenge of the genuineness, not the materiality, of factual disputes,” such that it did not have appellate jurisdiction over the interlocutory appeal on the qualified immunity issue.
    • The Court reached the same conclusion as to the denial of summary judgment on the claim of false arrest by the four officers, and as to the fourth officer’s appeal of the denial of summary judgment on the falsification of evidence claim.
    • Judge Oldham dissented in part, “disagree[ing] with the majority’s understanding of interlocutory appellate jurisdiction and the relevant qualified immunity inquiry.” As to the excessive force and false arrest claims, Judge Oldham would have held that there was no evidentiary dispute, as the entire arrest event was captured on body-cam footage, but that “[t]he dispute is a purely legal one regarding Ducksworth’s clearly established rights under the Fourth Amendment,” over which the Court would have had appellate jurisdiction.
    • Nevertheless, Judge Oldham would have found on the merits of the appeal that the denial of summary judgment was correct. “The officers’ real contention appears to be that they are free to order citizens to do anything any time and that refusal to obey creates probable cause for breach of the peace. But that is not the law, and no reasonable officer could believe otherwise.”
  • Vaughan v. Lewisville Independent School District, 22-40057, appeal from E.D. Tex.
    • Higginbotham, J. (Higginbotham, Duncan, Ebgelhardt), Voting Rights Act, sanctions
    • Vacating district court’s order of sanctions against plaintiff upon dismiss for lack of standing as a white voter bringing a Voting Rights Act § 2 claim that the school district’s at-large election system diluted the votes of non-white minorities within the district, and remanding for determination of “the extent to which the order is footed upon specific contemptuous conduct in the attorneys’ prosecution of the case.”
    • The Court held that the sanctions award under the civil rights fee-shifting provision was an abuse of discretion, because “this fee-shifting mechanism should not function to deter civil rights plaintiffs.” The Court held that the plaintiff’s argument on standing was a good-faith argument to extend law established in political gerrymandering cases to the Voting Rights Act context. “By vacating the sanction against Vaughan, we express no opinion on the correctness of his standing theory.”
    • On the Court’s § 1927 sanctions award against the plaintiff’s attorneys, the Court held that the district court must determine whether, in light of it holding vacating the finding of frivolousness in the argument on standing, there were specific instances of vexation or contemptuous conduct by the attorneys in unreasonably multiplying the proceedings, and what specific costs are attributable to those.

Unpublished

  • Cook v. Horsely, 21-10671, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Wiener, Stewart, Engelhardt), prisoner suit
    • Reversing in part and vacating in part district court’s dismissal of Texas state prisoner’s § 1983 claim of violation of Fourth Amendment rights arising from his being strip-searched as part of a training exercise in front of female guards and dozens of inmates; and remanding for further proceedings.
  • U.S. v. Price, 21-20629, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Stewart, Dennis, Willett), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming 110-month sentence and conviction of wire fraud and engaging in monetary transactions involving criminally derived property, arising from CARES Act PPP-loan fraud.
  • U.S. v. Latigo, 21-20645, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Wiener, Stewart, Engelhardt), criminal, supervised release
    • Affirming judgment of revocation of supervised release.
  • Kemp v. Belanger, 21-30752, c/w Kemp v. Glass-Bradley, 21-30781, appeal from W.D. La.
    • per curiam (Clement, Oldham, Wilson), Oldham, J., dissenting; excessive force, § 1983
    • Affirming summary judgment dismissing § 1983 claims arising from narcotics arrest; but reversing summary judgment dismissing excessive force claim arising from separate arrest; and remanding for further proceedings.
    • Judge Oldham dissented, as he would have affirmed the summary judgment on the excessive force claim on qualified immunity grounds.
  • Mady v. Garland, 21-60423, petition for review of BIA order
    • per curiam (Jones, Dennis, Willett), immigration
    • Denying Egyptian citizen’s petition for review of BIA order dismissing appeal of IJ’s denial of withholding of removal and protection under the CAT.
  • Shaffer v. PriorityOne Bank, 21-60802, appeal from S.D. Miss.
    • per curiam (Davis, Elrod, Haynes), arbitration
    • Affirming judgment denying bank’s motion to vacate arbitration award in favor of bankruptcy trustee.
  • U.S. v. Avila, 22-10187, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Clement, Oldham, Wilson), criminal, restitution
    • Affirming $14,955,313 restitution award on guilty-plea conviction of wire fraud.
  • U.S. v. Perez, 22-10580, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Stewart, Duncan, Wilson), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Talamantes, 22-10618, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Jones, Haynes, Oldham), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Quinonez, 22-10793, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (King, Higginson, Willett), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Halfacer, 22-10816, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (King, Higginson, Willett), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Mendoza, 22-10826, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Jones, Haynes, Oldham), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming 135-month sentence on conviction of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine.
  • U.S. v. Zeno, 22-30112, appeal from M.D. La.
    • per curiam (Smith, Southwick, Douglas), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming 60-month sentence on conviction of possession with intent to distribute cocaine.
  • Cooper v. Cornerstone Chemical Co., 22-30312, appeal from E.D. La.
    • per curiam (Jones, Willett, Douglas), labor law
    • Affirming summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s claim that he was terminated from his job as a crane operator in violation of a collective bargaining agreement and applicable labor law.
  • U.S. v. Pullins, 22-30558, appeal from M.D. La.
    • per curiam (King, Higginson, Willett), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • Dale & Klein, L.L.P. v. Owsley, 22-40283, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Richman, Haynes, Graves), bankruptcy
    • Affirming district court’s judgment affirming in part and reversing in part bankruptcy court’s fee award.
  • U.S. v. Ramirez-Sanchez, 22-50249, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (King, Higginson, Willett), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • Lopez v. Kendall, 22-50411, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Clement, Oldham, Wilson), Title VII, retaliation
    • Reversing 12(b)(6) dismissal of plaintiff’s Title VII retaliation claim on administrative exhaustion grounds, and remanding for further proceedings.
  • Walker v. Upp, 22-60374, appeal from N.D. Miss.
    • per curiam (Davis, Haynes (third judge recused, and case decided by quorum)), personal torts
    • Affirming summary judgment dismissal of plaintiff’s claims for negligence, gross negligence, and intentional infliction of emotional distress against ambulance EMT arising from response to his deceased brother’s gunshot trauma.