January 28, 2025, opinions

Posted on by tadbartlett

Designated for publication

  • Anderson v. Hutson, 23-30633, appeal from E.D. La.
    • per curiam (voting against rehearing: Elrod, Stewart, Southwick, Haynes, Graves, Higginson, Willett, Engelhardt, Wilson, Douglas, Ramirez, JJ.; voting for rehearing: Jones, Smith, Richman, Ho, Duncan, Oldham, JJ.), Ho, J., dissenting from denial of rehearing; Oldham, J. (joined by Jones, Smith, Duncan, JJ.), dissenting from denial of rehearing; prisoner suit, appellate jurisdiction, en banc
    • Denying en banc rehearing of panel decision (Douglas, J., joined by Wiener; Smith, J., dissenting) dismissing for lack of appellate jurisdiction sheriff’s appeal of denial of motion to terminate consent decree order to proceed with stipulated plan by prior sheriff to construct a mental health annex to the parish prison as part of remedy for plaintiff class’s claims regarding constitutionally inadequate housing.
  • Carmona v. City of Brownsville, 24-40209, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • Barksdale, J. (Jones, Barksdale, Ho), Ho, J., concurring; qualified immunity
    • Affirming qualified immunity dismissal of prisoner official defendants, finding that plaintiff failed to plausibly allege the defendants possessed the requisite subjective knowledge on which to base a deliberate indifference claim.
    • Judge Ho concurred. He emphasized that a deliberate indifference plaintiff can also meet the claim’s requisites by showing that knowledge of a substantial risk of harm could be inferred from an obvious risk, although the plaintiff in this case did not advance that argument.
  • Airlines for America v. Department of Transportation, 24-60231, c/w Spirit Airlines, Inc. v. Department of Transportation, 24-60373, petition for review of DOT order
    • Haynes, J. (Southwick, Haynes, Douglas), administrative law
    • Remanding DOT rule requiring up-front disclosure of certain airline fees, on finding that DOT failed to fully comply with the APA (though also finding that DOT did have authority to make such rules, rejecting argument to impose the major questions doctrine).

Unpublished

  • U.S. v. Marquez, 24-10176, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Haynes, Duncan, Wilson), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming sentence on conviction of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine.
  • U.S. v. Martinez, 23-10712, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (King, Southwick, Engelhardt), criminal
    • Affirming conviction of possession of a firearm by a felon.
  • U.S. v. Reyes-Tafolla, 24-10719, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Haynes, Higginson, Douglas), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming conviction and sentence for illegal reentry.
  • U.S. v. Nicholson, 23-11198, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Haynes, Duncan, Wilson), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming 292-month sentence on conviction of possession with intent to distribute at least 500 grams of methamphetamine.
  • Wyly v. Eichor, 24-20238, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Haynes, Duncan, Wilson), bankruptcy
    • Affirming imposition of contempt and sanctions for violation of bankruptcy discharge order.
  • Dike v. Columbia Hospital Corp., 24-40058, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Davis, Graves, Wilson), employment discrimination, title VII
    • Affirming summary judgment dismissal of discrimination and retaliation claims, vacating summary judgment dismissal of hostile-work-environment claims, and remanding for further proceedings.
  • Natour v. Hamdan, 23-40714, appeal from E.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Haynes, Duncan, Wilson), timeliness
    • Dismissing as untimely appeal from dismissal of claims arising from disputed debit card transaction.
  • U.S. v. Ramos, 24-50262, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Richman, Douglas, Ramirez), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • Benitez-Rivera v. McHenry, 24-60150, petition for review of BIA order
    • per curiam (Haynes, Duncan, Wilson), immigration
    • Granting Mexican citizen’s petition for review of BIA order and remanding for BIA “to consider whether Benitez-Rivera abandoned his application for withholding of removal in light of the IJ’s allegedly ambiguous deadline. On remand, Benitez-Rivera may also file a motion to reconsider the IJ’s ruling that he is ineligible to apply for cancellation of removal.”