Designated for publication
- Hopkins v. Hosemann, 19-60662, c/w 19-60678, appeal from S.D. Miss.
- per curiam (en banc court), voting rights, Eighth Amendment, Equal Protection, standing, sovereign immunity, Ex parte Young
- Granting en banc rehearing, and vacating August 4, 2023, panel opinion that reversed in part and affirmed in part district court’s dismissal of constitutional challenge to Mississippi’s permanent disenfranchisement of certain felons.
- Perry v. Mendoza, 22-20436, appeal from S.D. Tex.
- Duncan, J. (Duncan, Wilson, Mazzant, by designation), qualified immunity
- Affirming qualified immunity dismissal of plaintiff’s false arrest charges on her arrest for telephone harassment after officer witnessed plaintiff call in false complaints about her neighbors’ loud music. The Court held that the arresting officer reasonably believed she had probable cause to arrest the plaintiff, in light of her investigation of the complaints of loud music and her consultation with the district attorney prior to making the arrest.
- Carbon Six Barrels, L.L.C. v. Proof Research, Inc., 22-30772, appeal from M.D. La.
- Elrod, J. (Clement, Elrod, Willett), trademark infringement, timeliness, unfair trade practices
- Affirming dismissal of defamation claim as untimely under Louisiana’s one-year prescriptive period, and affirming dismissal of unfair trade practices claim as deficiently pled.
- The defendant had sued the plaintiff’s sister company for trademark infringement with regard to carbon fiber gun barrels manufactured by the defendant and the plaintiff; as a result of that prior suit, the plaintiff’s sister company succeeded in a separate action to have the defendant’s trademark canceled. The plaintiff then brought this suit for defamation and for violation of the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act stemming from the defendant’s efforts to enforce its previously valid trademark.
- The Court held that the defamation and LUTPA claims as untimely under Louisiana’s one-year period for tort and LUTPA claims. The Court held that there was no ongoing action by the defendant sufficient to render the claims for continuing tort or continuing unfair trade practice, even if there was ongoing damage.
- The Court also held that the efforts to enforce a later-invalidated trademark cannot give rise to an unfair trade practices claim. While the Court would not hold that “abusive litigation can never give rise to a LUTPA claim,” the “act of filing a lawsuit”–even a retaliatory one–“is usually not enough to support a LUTPA claim.”
- In re Landry, 23-30642, appeal from M.D. La.
- Jones, J. (Jones, Higginson, Ho); Ho, J., concurring; Higginson, J., dissenting; mandamus, election law
- Granting mandamus in part, and vacating district court’s scheduled hearing in congressional redistricting case.
- The Court held that the district court erred in ordering a hearing to confect a court-ordered redistricting map rather than allow for the legislature to attempt to reformulate its redistricting map first, or to at least move forward with its preliminary injunction argument that is separately set before the Fifth Circuit. “That this application presents an unusual posture for mandamus is not a contrivance of Landry or this panel but the result of the district court’s unique rush to remedy when circumstances did not require it. … The likelihood of conflicting courts’ scheduling and determinations will create uncertainty for the state and, more important, the candidates and electorate who may be placed into new congressional districts. In sum, while there is on paper a right to appeal whatever decision the district court renders on drawing its own redistricting maps, the paper right is a precursor to legal chaos.”
- Judge Ho concurred. He emphasized that, regardless whether a remedy was available on appeal, mandamus was justified by exceptional circumstances because “the stakes of the litigation are unusually significant. … It doesn’t just delineate how Louisiana voters may exercise their right to vote for their elected representatives in the House. It could also impact the course of national policy decisions made by Congress—after all, every member of Congress has a voice, and a vote, in those deliberations. Whatever the final outcome of Louisiana’s redistricting process may be, the people of Louisiana, and the country, are entitled to an orderly process that they can trust.”
- Judge Higginson dissented. He would hold that mandamus improperly was being used as “a tool to manage a district court’s docket” and as a substitution for appeal.
Unpublished
- U.S. v. Robles, 22-11231, appeal from N.D. Tex.
- per curiam (King, Haynes, Graves), criminal
- Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
- Villegas-Lopez v. Garland, 22-60377, petition for review of BIA order
- per curiam (Jolly, Southwick, Oldham), immigration
- Denying Mexican citizen’s petition for review of BIA order that dismissed the petitioner’s appeal from an immigration judge’s order sustaining a charge of removability based on a state criminal conviction.
- U.S. v. Edwards, 23-10128, appeal from N.D. Tex.
- per curiam (Smith, Higginson, Engelhardt), criminal
- Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
- U.S. v. Howard, 23-10130, appeal from N.D. Tex.
- per curiam (Wiener, Stewart, Douglas), criminal
- Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
- U.S. v. Olalde-Suarez, 23-10135, appeal from N.D. Tex.
- per curiam (King, Haynes, Graves), criminal, sentencing
- Affirming 48-month sentence on conviction of illegal reentry.
- U.S. v. Lewis, 23-10262, appeal from N.D. Tex.
- per curiam (Wiener, Stewart, Douglas), criminal
- Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
- U.S. v. Pineda-Diaz, 23-10381, appeal from N.D. Tex.
- per curiam (Jolly, Higginson, Duncan), criminal
- Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
- U.S. v. Meals, 23-10554, appeal from N.D. Tex.
- per curiam (Jones, Southwick, Ho), criminal, compassionate release
- Affirming denial of motion for further sentence reduction.
- U.S. v. Willis, 23-30157, appeal from M.D. La.
- per curiam (King, Haynes, Graves), criminal, sentencing
- Affirming 60-month sentence on revocation of supervised release.
- U.S. v. Gonzalez-Salazar, 23-40227, appeal from S.D. Tex.
- per curiam (Higginbotham, Stewart, Southwick), criminal
- Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
- U.S. v. Self, 23-50046, appeal from W.D. Tex.
- per curiam (Willett, Duncan, Wilson), criminal, First Step Act
- Affirming denial of motion for sentence reduction under the First Step Act.
- U.S. v. Lopez-Arellano, 23-50295, appeal from W.D. Tex.
- per curiam (King, Haynes, Graves), criminal, sentencing
- Affirming 27-month sentence on conviction of illegal reentry.
Take the Fifth 