February 25, 2025, opinions

Designated for publication

  • Bakutis v. Dean, 24-10271, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • Engelhardt, J. (Ho, Engelhardt, Douglas), Douglas, J., dissenting in part; qualified immunity
    • Affirming district court’s denial of qualified immunity on excessive force claim, but reversing denial of qualified immunity on unreasonable search claim, and remanding for further proceedings on claims arising from shooting death of homeowner by officers who had not announced themselves as officers before shooting the homeowner through her window while checking a report from a neighbor at 2:30 a.m. that the homeowner’s front door was open.
    • The Court held that, because the perimeter search of the open structure was a “community caretaking function,” it was not clearly established that the officer’s actions constituted an unreasonable search.
    • As to the excessive force claim, the Court held, “A reasonable officer in Dean’s position had ‘fair notice’ that, without giving a warning, he could not use deadly force against Jefferson.”
    • Judge Douglas dissented in part, dissenting from the reversal of the denial of qualified immunity on the unreasonable search claim, observing that “the allegations also demonstrate that after failing to corroborate that an armed burglary was in progress, and in fact seeing no signs of a forced entry, Dean illegally entered the curtilage of Jefferson’s home in violation of the Fourth Amendment.”

Unpublished

  • Hincapie v. Texas Tech University, 24-10316, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Smith, Higginson, Douglas), Title VI
    • Affirming dismissal of Title VI claims by former PhD student of university who, after graduating with PhD, sued university for racial discrimination during his matriculation, alleging he had been treated less favorably as an Hispanic than Asian students in the program.
  • U.S. v. Miller, 24-10533, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Higginbotham, Jones, Oldham), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Williams, 24-10821, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Graves, Willett, Wilson), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • Farooq v. Cody Cofer & James Luster Law Firm, 24-10933, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Jones, Dennis, Southwick), jurisdiction
    • Affirming dismissal of plaintiff’s “ineffective counseling” claim for lack of diversity jurisdiction and for pleading a frivolous claim, assuming his claim could be deemed to be a § 1983 claim.
  • U.S. v. Comb, 23-20422, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Jolly, Southwick, Duncan), criminal, compassionate release
    • Affirming denial of motion for compassionate release.
  • Rincon v. City of Laredo, 24-40168, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Smith, Clement, Duncan), qualified immunity
    • Affirming 12(b)(6) and summary judgment dismissals of plaintiff’s Fourth and First Amendment claims on the basis of qualified immunity.
  • U.S. v. Ibarra, 23-40372, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Richman, Willett, Douglas), habeas corpus
    • Affirming denial of § 2255 petition.
  • U.S. v. Carson, 24-50065, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Higginbotham, Jones, Oldham), criminal
    • Affirming conviction of possession of a firearm by a felon.
  • U.S. v. Quezada, 24-50252, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Higginbotham, Jones, Oldham), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Ramirez, 24-50490, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Graves, Willett, Wilson), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • Diaz v. Maximus Services, L.L.C., 23-50914, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Smith, Clement, Duncan), employment discrimination
    • Affirming summary judgment dismissal of disability-discrimination and failure-to-accommodate claims against plaintiff’s former employer.
  • Okorie v. Lentz, 24-60377, appeal from S.D. Miss.
    • per curiam (Richman, Willett, Douglas), bankruptcy
    • Affirming the annulment of the automative stay as to a foreclosure on property collateral held by one of the debtor’s secured creditors.