February 1, 2024, opinions

Posted on by tadbartlett

Designated for publication

  • Jimerson v. Lewis, 22-10441, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • Southwick, J. (Stewart, Dennis, Southwick), Dennis, J., dissenting; qualified immunity
    • Reversing denial of qualified immunity summary judgment on behalf of officers who attempted to execute a search warrant through a SWAT team, but on the wrong address (though the warrant itself showed the correct address), and remanding with instructions to dismiss.
    • The Court held that the issue of whether the defendants’ actions were objectively reasonable in identifying the house at the address on the warrant was a legal question subject to appellate review, rather than a factual finding that would be insulated from review under the collateral order doctrine.
    • The Court held that, although the officer in charge of the SWAT operation erred in identifying the correct house, “he made significant efforts to identify the correct residence.” The Court held that the defendant officer was “Far more careful than the officers in” two opinions from other circuits that had held that a mistaken-address warrant execution was a violation of the Fourth Amendment. Therefore, the Court held that there was not a violation of clearly established law, because the officer defendants could not have had fair warning that their level of diligence in identifying the correct address was constitutionally insufficient.
    • Judge Dennis dissented. He agreed that the issue was a legal one, rather than a factual dispute that would prevent appellate review, but he would hold that the officers’ conduct did violate clearly established law. “Based on the undisputed facts in this case, Lewis failed to use the intelligence he received from the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) that would have easily allowed him to direct the SWAT team to the target house. The DEA alerted Lewis that the house number was painted on the curb and affixed to a wooden pole on the deck, and that the target house was the thirteenth one on the block”; but the officer did not use any of this information in his effort to identify the correct house. Discussing Supreme Court precedent on incorrect-address searches and other non-precedential decisions elucidating that precedent, Judge Dennis would find that it was beyond debate that the officer defendants’ conduct violated the Fourth Amendment and was thus “clearly established.”
  • Harris v. FedEx Corporate Services, Inc., 23-20035, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • Wilson, J. (Southwick, Engelhardt, Wilson), § 1981, Title VII, expert witness, timeliness, employment discrimination
    • Reversing in part and affirming in part, reversing judgment on jury’s verdict in favor of plaintiff on § 1981 claim, finding that claim to be time-barred; affirming judgment in favor of plaintiff on Title VII retaliation claim; but remitting $366,160,000 jury verdict to $248,619.57 in light of Title VII’s $300,000 cap and eliminating punitive damages award; and holding that defendant was not entitled to new trial due to trial court’s evidentiary ruling regarding plaintiff’s expert’s testimony.
    • The Court held that a limitations provision in the plaintiff’s employment contract time-barred her § 1981 claim after six months from the event giving rise to her claim (she had filed suit sixteen months after her termination). The Court held that the six-month contractual limitations period was a reasonable period of time and did not result in a miscarriage of justice.
    • The Court then held that sufficient evidence in the record justified the jury’s liability verdict on the Title VII retaliation claim, as she had presented evidence to show that FedEx’s case of legitimate reasons for termination were a pretext, specifically by showing evidence of similarly situated employees who were not terminated. “To accept FedEx’s view of the evidence and reject the jury’s, we would necessarily wade into making credibility determinations, weighing the evidence, and drawing inferences. This we cannot do.”
    • The Court held that a compensatory verdict at the Title VII statutory cap of $300,000 would be excessive on the factual record, and after a comparison with evidence presented in other Title VII emotional damages cases remitted that award to $248,619.57. The Court also held that there was insufficient evidence to support the award of punitive damages. “Although we affirm the jury’s finding that Lamb engaged in retaliation, Harris does not meet the higher burden to show that Lamb did so in the face of a perceived risk that her actions would violate federal law.” (Internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
    • The Court held that, although the plaintiff’s expert conceded to not testifying based on a review of FedEx’s employment disciplinary policies and that the lack of proper foundation meant that the district court had “abdicated its role as gatekeeper,” nevertheless FedEx failed to show that the expert’s testimony affected its substantial rights.

Unpublished

  • U.S. v. Godsey, 22-50970, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Davis, Ho, Ramirez), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming convictions of conspiring to knowingly and intentionally possess with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of actual methamphetamine, and sentences of co-defendants to 212 months and 276 months, respectively.
  • Hill v. Schilling, 23-10111, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Wiener, Stewart, Douglas), intervention
    • Affirming denial of intervention as untimely and for failure to show entitlement to intervention.
  • U.S. v. Valtierra, 23-10671, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Higginbotham, Stewart, Southwick), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Cato, 23-10747, c/w 23-10753, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Smith, Higginson, Engelhardt), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Lopez, 23-20409, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Wiener, Stewart, Douglas), criminal, sentencing
    • Vacating sentence and remanding for conformance of written judgment to orally pronounced supervised release conditions.
  • U.S. v. Melancon, 23-30316, appeal from W.D. La.
    • per curiam (Wiener, Stewart, Douglas), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Homan, 23-60396, appeal from S.D. Miss.
    • per curiam (Wiener, Stewart, Douglas), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming 12-month sentence on revocation of supervised release.