August 28, 2024, opinions

Posted on by tadbartlett

Designated for publication

  • Wooten v. Lumpkin, 21-10924, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • Elrod, J. (Elrod, Willett, Duncan), habeas corpus
    • Affirming denial of § 2254 petition for habeas relief from state conviction and sentence on basis that state court impermissibly used a non-final conviction to enhance his sentence, holding that any error by the state court was harmless. Accordingly, the Court did not base its affirmance on the relitigation bar, but on harmless error analysis. “In holding that any error was harmless because there were alternative grounds for rejecting Wooten’s claims, we do not resolve whether alternative federal grounds are sufficient to establish harmless error when a state court error violates a state habeas requirement. We need not consider that thorny question (or whether violations of a state habeas requirement can be considered as part of a Brecht analysis at all) because Wooten has not established that any error by the state habeas court violated a state habeas requirement.”
  • Gray v. Killick Group, L.L.C., 23-20295, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • Southwick, J. (Southwick, Haynes, Graves), Fair Labor Standards Act, judicial estoppel
    • Affirming summary judgment dismissal of plaintiff’s FLSA overtime claims against ostensible employer, on basis that plaintiff was judicially estopped from asserting employee status by previously sworn assertion before a criminal court that he was self-employed.
  • Momin v. Jaddou, 23-20327, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • Higginson, J. (Wiener, Haynes, Higginson), immigration
    • Affirming dismissal of plaintiff’s claim for review of USCIS determination that he was ineligible for adjustment of immigration status, for lack of jurisdiction. The Court summarized: “Appellant, a man who has lived in this country for the last thirty years, and who is both married to a U.S. citizen and the father of U.S. citizens, has spent the last seventeen years attempting to adjust his immigration status. In 2021, the last of his three applications was denied, on the ground that the use of an incorrect birthdate had ‘permeated all facets’ of Appellant’s life and constituted fraud rendering him ineligible for adjustment. Appellant sought review in district court, which dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, and now appeals that decision. Because 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) poses a jurisdictional bar to our review under the law as it stands, we have no choice but to AFFIRM.”
    • The Court detailed the numerous errors made by the government in handling the petitioner’s proceedings that had required judicial correction along the way, and lamented the rationale given for USCIS’s denial of the application for adjustment: “But what’s in a birthdate? Or, more specifically, what’s in a typographical error concerning one’s birthdate when there are no allegations of benefit or consequence—and, thus, no apparent significance? Tellingly, in oral argument, the government had no answer.” Nevertheless, the Court acknowledged that the state of the law was such that judicial review was unavailable: “That Momin has no recourse for what may be a series of mistakes by the government is cruel but legally compelled. As the law stands, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) precludes judicial review of denials of applications for adjustment of status and waivers of inadmissibility. This case illustrates some of the pitfalls that follow. In the absence of judicial review to ensure that the government turns square corners, we are left only with the hope that USCIS will give any future application by Momin to reopen his case careful attention.”
  • Sims v. City of Jasper, 23-40369, appeal from E.D. Tex.
    • Southwick, J. (Southwick, Haynes, Graves), § 1983, bifurcation
    • Affirming judgment on jury verdict in favor of defendant jail personnel on plaintiff’s § 1983 deliberate indifference claims arising from the death of her son while in custody, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to bifurcate the liability and damages portions of trial.
  • U.S. v. Connelly, 23-50312, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • Engelhardt, J. (Smith, Engelhardt, Ramirez), criminal, Second Amendment
    • Affirming district court’s holding that 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(3) and 922(d)(3) regarding possession of firearms by and providing firearms to an unlawful user of a controlled substance are unconstitutional as applied to the defendant because she was not intoxicated at the time of the arrest; but reversing the district court’s holding that the statute was facially unconstitutional.
    • “The short of it is that our history and tradition may support some limits on a presently intoxicated person’s right to carry a weapon (and for that reason Paola’s facial challenges to §§ 922(g)(3) and 922(d)(3) fail), but they do not support disarming a sober person based solely on past substance usage. Nor, contrary to what the government contends, do restrictions on the mentally ill or more generalized traditions of disarming ‘dangerous’ persons apply to nonviolent, occasional drug users when of sound mind.” (Emphasis in original).
  • Perez v. City of San Antonio, 23-50746, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • Stewart, J. (Richman, Stewart, Higginson), Free Exercise Clause, freedom of religion
    • Granting petition for panel rehearing of April 11, 2024, opinion that dismissed as moot the appeal of the district court’s preliminary injunction order allowing the plaintiffs access to a city park for religious ceremonies, and that affirmed the denial of the plaintiffs’ request to enjoin the City’s planned tree removal and management of cormorant rookeries in the park; and certifying question to the Texas State Supreme Court:
      • “Does the ‘Religious Service Protections’ provision of the Constitution of the State of Texas—as expressed in Article 1, Section 6-a—impose a categorical bar on any limitation of any religious service, regardless of the sort of limitation and the government’s interest in that limitation?”
  • Banco Mercantil de Norte, S.A. v. Paramo, 24-20007, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • Wilson, J. (Wiener, Elrod, Wilson), foreign discovery
    • Vacating judgment denying a motion to quash a 28 U.S.C. § 1782 petition for discovery by a foreign party, holding that district courts must provide reasoning explaining denials of such motions; and remanding to the district court for entry of reasons.

Unpublished

  • Jimenez v. Garland, 23-60581, petition for review of BIA order
    • per curiam (Southwick, Haynes, Douglas), immigration
    • Denying Mexican citizen’s petition for review of BIA’s denial of his motion for reopening and reconsideration.
  • Carrero-Marroquin v. Garland, 23-60646, petition for review of BIA order
    • per curiam (Barksdale, Stewart, Ramirez), immigration
    • Denying Salvadoran citizen’s petition for review of BIA order denying his motion to reopen, which was filed in order to be able to apply for cancellation of his removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b).