November 20, 2023, opinions

Posted on by tadbartlett

Designated for publication

  • Chambers v. Kijakazi, 20-10918, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • Higginson, J. (Smith, Higginson, Engelhardt), social security, jurisdiction
    • Affirming the district court’s decision that it did not have jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s claims arising from withholding of benefits. The Court held that it could not have general federal question jurisdiction over claims arising from the Social Security Act, and that the limited jurisdiction for judicial review of Social Security decisions only allowed for review of final decisions of the Commissioner of Social Security. The Court held that the numerous ongoing proceedings before the SSA showed that he had not met the administrative exhaustion requirement.
  • Women’s Elevated Sober Living L.L.C. v. City of Plano, 22-40637, appeal from E.D. Tex.
    • Stewart, J. (Jones, Stewart, Duncan), Fair Housing Act
    • Vacating district court’s injunction based on finding that City of Plano had violated the FHA by failing to accommodate the plaintiffs as to capacity limits in the applicable zoning ordinance, and remanding for further proceedings.
    • The City had notified the plaintiff sober living facility, which housed up to 15 people, that it was in violation of the single-family (SF-7) zoning ordinance that capped capacity for household care facilities at 8 unrelated individuals and 2 caretakers. The plaintiff requested an accommodation to allow 17 to 20 residents, which the City’s Board of Adjustment denied. The district found that the City violated the FHA for failure to accommodate the plaintiffs’ request as therapeutically necessary, issued injunctive relief, a $1 nominal damages award, and full-lodestar fees with no reduction or enhancement, while rejecting claims for punitive, mental anguish, and lost profits damages.
    • The Court held that, “[t]o prove that an accommodation request is necessary, courts require that a plaintiff prove that the requested accommodation makes the home either ‘financially viable’ or ‘therapeutically meaningful.’ … However, a requested accommodation that is preferable to an alternative is not sufficient; it must be essential. … [W]ithout the requested accommodation, the ameliorative benefit provided must be so insignificant that it deprives persons with disabilities from the opportunity to use and enjoy the dwelling of their choice as compared to those without disabilities.” The Court held that the evidence at trial failed to meet this necessity standard.

Unpublished

  • Ndungmbowo v. Garland, 21-60213, petition for review of BIA order
    • per curiam (Elrod, Haynes, Willett), Elrod, J., concurring in judgment only; immigration
    • Granting Cameroonian citizen’s petition for review of BIA order affirming the denial of his claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture, agreeing that the adverse credibility determination was unsupported by the record, and remanding for further consideration.
  • U.S. v. Briseno, 23-10548, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Smith, Higginson, Engelhardt), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming conviction and sentence for illegal reentry.
  • U.S. v. Stratton, 23-10632, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Higginbotham, Stewart, Southwick), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Gutierrez, 23-40045, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Barksdale, Graves, Oldham), criminal, search and seizure
    • Affirming conviction of possession with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine, upholding denial of motion to suppress.
  • U.S. v. Mancilla, 23-50248, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Elrod, Oldham, Wilson), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.