March 11-12, 2024, opinions

Posted on by tadbartlett

Designated for publication

  • Deanda v. Becerra, 23-10159, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • Duncan, J. (Richman, Haynes, Duncan), Administrative Procedures Act, preemption, healthcare law
    • Affirming in part and reversing in part district court’s judgment that Title X of the Public Health Service Act violates the plaintiff’s constitutional right to consent to the provision of contraceptive care to his minor daughters and that a regulation promulgated under Title X after the suit was filed should be invalidated under the APA.
    • The Court held that the plaintiff had standing because Texas’s parental consent law gives him a right to consent to his children’s medical care, and he alleged that “the Secretary’s policy burdens his right to exercise his Christian belief that his minor children should abstain from pre-marital sex.”
    • The Court then held that Title X does not preempt Texas’s parental consent law because “a Title X grantee could comply with the Texas law while also complying with Title X’s statutory directive that grantees ‘[t]o the extent practical … shall encourage family participation’ in family planning projects. 42 U.S.C. § 300(a).” The Court therefore affirmed the district court’s ruling that the Secretary’s administration of Title X violated the plaintiff’s rights under Texas’s parental consent law.
    • The Court reversed the district court’s final judgment holding a regulation prohibiting parental consent to be unlawful–and also did not consider that regulation in the preemption analysis–because the regulation was not promulgated until after the suit was filed and the parties had briefed their cross-motions for summary judgment.
  • Santee v. Oceaneering Int’l, Inc., 23-20095, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • Stewart, J. (Stewart, Duncan, Engelhardt), maritime law
    • Affirming denial of motion to remand and summary judgment in favor of defendants in maritime personal injury case.
    • The Court held that the plaintiff was not a Jones Act seaman, when he was employed by a land-based company to service ROVs on deepwater oil and gas drilling platforms. Also, because the platform he was on at the time of his injury was attached to the seabed, the Court held that the federal courts has jurisdiction under OCSLA.
    • The Court held that the district court correctly held that the LHWCA provided the exclusive remedies and that summary judgment on the plaintiff’s claims against his employer and against the owner of the oil platform was proper. The Court also affirmed the summary judgment as to the claims against Chevron on the basis that Chevron did not have the requisite level of operational control.

Unpublished

  • U.S. v. Bangash, 23-10228, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Wiener, Stewart, Douglas), criminal
    • Affirming conviction for possession of a firearm by a felon.
  • U.S. v. Smith, 23-10303, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Jolly, Higginson, Duncan), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming conviction and 120-month sentence for possession of a firearm by a felon.
  • U.S. v. Loyola, 23-10323, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Barksdale, Engelhardt, Wilson), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming conviction and 120-month sentence for possession of a machine gun.
  • McReynolds v. Bell Textron, Inc., 23-10510, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Elrod, Oldham, Wilson), employment discrimination
    • Affirming dismissal of employment discrimination claims.
  • U.S. v. Cunningham, 23-10751, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Higginbotham, Stewart, Southwick), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Cruise, 23-20194, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Wiener, Stewart, Douglas), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming conviction and 240-month sentence for conspiracy to commit healthcare fraud and wire fraud.
  • Carter v. Collier, 23-20413, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Wiener, Stewart, Douglas), prisoner suit
    • Affirming dismissal of Texas state prisoner’s § 1983 claims.
  • Smith v. DG Louisiana, L.L.C., 23-30261, appeal from M.D. La.
    • per curiam (Stewart, Duncan, Engelhardt), personal tort
    • Affirming judgment on jury verdict against plaintiffs in slip-and-fall case.
  • U.S. v. Hodges, 23-30575, appeal from W.D. La.
    • per curiam (Higginbotham, Stewart, Southwick), criminal
    • Affirming conviction of being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition.
  • U.S. v. Delossantos, 23-40298, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Elrod, Oldham, Wilson), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Gonzalez-Nivar, 23-40388, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Higginbotham, Stewart, Elrod), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • Trevino v. City of Austin, 23-50118, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Elrod, Oldham, Wilson), § 1983
    • Affirming summary judgment dismissal of plaintiff’s § 1983 claims arising from arrest and pat-down search.
  • Denise H. v. Texas Education Agency, 23-50287, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Stewart, Clement, Ho), Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act, mootness
    • Affirming dismissal of IDEA claims as moot.
  • U.S. v. Samuels, 23-50355, c/w 23-50363, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Smith, Higginson, Engelhardt), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Munoz-Betancourt, 23-50462, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Higginbotham, Stewart, Southwick), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Matias-Miguel, 23-50686, c/w 23-50689, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Elrod, Oldham, Wilson), criminal
    • Affirming conviction of illegal reentry and revocation of supervised release.
  • Negron v. Lumpkin, 23-50852, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Elrod, Haynes, Douglas), habeas corpus
    • Dismissing as frivolous appeal from district court’s dismissal of successive § 2254 petition.
  • Flores v. Garland, 23-60406, petition for review of BIA order
    • per curiam (Higginbotham, Stewart, Southwick), immigration
    • Denying Mexican citizen’s petition for review of BIA order dismissing her appeal from an Immigration Judge’s (IJ) order denying her motion to reopen her proceedings.