February 29, 2024, opinions

Posted on by tadbartlett

Designated for publication

  • Argueta v. Jaradi, 22-40781, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (voting against en banc rehearing: Richman, Jones, Smith, Southwick, Willett, Ho, Duncan, Engelhardt, Oldham, Wilson; voting for en banc rehearing: Stewart, Elrod, Haynes, Graves, Higginson, Douglas, Ramirez); Elrod, J., dissenting (joined by Stewart, Graves, Higginson, Douglas, JJ.); Douglas, J., dissenting (joined by Graves, Higginson, JJ., and by Elrod, J., as to parts I and II of dissent); qualified immunity
    • Denying en banc rehearing of panel opinion that reversed denial of qualified immunity for officer defendant arising from fatal shooting of suspect armed with a handgun equipped with a high-capacity ammunition extension, and rendering judgment dismissing excessive force claims brought by suspect’s survivors.
    • Judge Elrod dissented from the denial of rehearing. She noted that “[t]his case is about whether an officer is entitled to qualified immunity for shooting a fleeing suspect in the back without warning when that suspect concealed his arm from view such that the officer thought that he might be armed.” She opined that the panel majority expanded the “furtive gesture” law beyond the scope of Circuit precedent, applying it in the absence of any other factors that would have supported an objective reasonableness determination.
    • Judge Douglas also dissented from the denial of rehearing. “The opinion of the panel was not faithful to the legal standards underlying Argueta’s claims. Specifically, the opinion commits at least three errors. First, it does not view the facts in favor of the non-movant, Argueta, and is based on inferences in favor of Officer Jaradi. Second, it distorts precedent regarding armed suspects and the summary judgment standard for qualified immunity. Third, it misconstrues flight risk as a question of law, rather than fact.”

Unpublished

  • Epley v. Itie, 21-50574, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Stewart, Clement, Ho), prisoner suit
    • Affirming dismissal of inmate’s sec. 1983 claims arising from transfers during his confinement.
  • Dierlam v. Biden, 23-20401, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (King, Haynes, Graves), Affordable Care Act
    • Affirming dismissal of RFRA challenge to Affordable Care Act.
  • Braggs v. BP Exploration & Production, Inc., 23-30297, appeal from E.D. La.
    • per curiam (Richman, Graves, Wilson), toxic tort
    • Affirming summary judgment dismissal of toxic tort claims for failure to provide evidence of medical causation.
  • U.S. v. Winfield, 23-30440, appeal from W.D. La.
    • per curiam (Barksdale, Engelhardt, Wilson), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming 78-month sentence on conviction of distributing methamphetamine.
  • U.S. v. Williams, 23-30464, appeal from W.D. La.
    • per curiam (Willett, Duncan, Ramirez), criminal, sentencing, search and seizure
    • Affirming conviction and 216-month sentence for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine and possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, upholding denial of motion to suppress.
  • U.S. v. Wilson, 23-60101, appeal from S.D. Miss.
    • per curiam (Stewart, Clement, Ho), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming conviction and 240-month and 60-month consecutive sentences for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine and conspiracy to commit money laundering.