March 3-4, 2025, opinions

Posted on by tadbartlett

Designated for publication

  • U.S. v. Norman, 24-30294, appeal from M.D. La.
    • Elrod, C.J. (Elrod, Jones, Stewart), criminal, search and seizure
    • Reversing grant of motion to suppress evidence from a house and vehicle, holding that the good-faith exception applied to overcome the bare-bones nature of the affidavit in support of the search warrant, and remanding for further proceedings.
  • Rodriguez v. City of Corpus Christi, 23-40520, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • Southwick, J. (Southwick, Haynes, Douglas), Equal Pay Act, Fair Labor Standards Act, Title VII
    • Affirming dismissal of claims against former employer on summary judgment, on claims arising from overtime worked under the Public Health District’s COVID-19 expanded work schedule and from the termination of the plaintiff based on work performance and disagreements about communications regarding public response to the pandemic.
  • U.S. v. Flores, 23-50128, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • Richman, J. (Stewart, Richman, Scholer, by designation), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming the imposition of one year of supervised release as part of sentence for revocation of probation, rejecting argument that it exceeded the maximum sentence authorized under Texas law.
  • Simpson v. Cisneros, 23-50678, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • Higginbotham, J. (Higginbotham, Stewart, Haynes), qualified immunity, § 1983
    • Reversing denial of summary judgment to prison guard, and remanding for further proceedings, holding that the Fourteenth Amendment’s substantive due process clause does not protect inmates from sexual assault by prison guards because the Eighth Amendment provides that protection.
  • Ramsey v. Sheet Pile, L.L.C., 23-50911, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • Southwick, J. (Elrod, Higginbotham, Southwick), employment, breach of contract
    • Affirming judgment after trial in favor of former employee on claims of breach of employment contract and breach of promissory note for amounts he had loaned to the company; vacating award of prejudgment interest; and remanding for recalculation of amount of damages and consideration of potential injunctive relief to the employer regarding confidential information possessed by the former employee.
  • Green v. Thomas, 24-60314, appeal from S.D. Miss.
    • Willett, J. (Higginbotham, Willett, Ho), Ho, J., concurring in judgment only, without opinion; qualified immunity
    • Affirming denial of qualified immunity dismissal of false arrest and due process claims against detective by plaintiff who had been wrongfully jailed for murder, reversing the denial of qualified immunity dismissal of malicious prosecution claims, and remanding for further proceedings.

Unpublished

  • U.S. v. Gilowski, 24-10336, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Smith, Stewart, Duncan), criminal, forfeiture
    • Dismissing as frivolous appeal from forfeiture order.
  • Wells v. Texas Tech University, 24-10518, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (King, Ho, Ramirez), Title VII, Title IX, trade secrets
    • Affirming 12(b)(6) dismissal of Title VII, Title IX, and trade secrets claims by former student and then former unpaid intern of university program arising from treatment by professors and alleged misappropriation of plaintiff’s work.
  • U.S. v. Hockin, 23-11119, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Smith, Stewart, Duncan), criminal
    • Affirming conviction of possession of a firearm by a felon.
  • U.S. v. Lightfoot, 24-30299, appeal from W.D. La.
    • per curiam (Smith, Stewart, Duncan), criminal, sentence reduction, compassionate release
    • Affirming denial of motion for sentence reduction, and remanding for consideration of motion for compassionate release.
  • U.S. v. Sandstrom, 24-30309, appeal from W.D. La.
    • per curiam (Wiener, Stewart, Southwick), criminal, restitution
    • Affirming restitution award.
  • Roe v. Patterson, 23-40281, appeal from E.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (King, Ho, Engelhardt), defamation
    • Vacating dismissal of plaintiff’s defamation claims and remanding to district court, on receiving answer to certified question from Texas Supreme Court that a person who supplies defamatory material to another for publication can be liable for defamation, and that a defamation plaintiff can survive summary judgment by presenting evidence that a defendant was involved in preparing a defamatory publication, without identifying any specific statements made by the defendant.
  • U.S. v. Tang, 24-40385, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Graves, Willett, Wilson), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion for withdrawal, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Lujan, 24-50030, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (King, Ho, Ramirez), criminal, search and seizure
    • Affirming conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of actual methamphetamine and possession with intent to distribute the same, upholding denial of motion to suppress.
  • U.S. v. Leyva-Gomez, 24-50245, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Barksdale, Haynes, Wilson), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming 71-month sentence on conviction of conspiracy to transport aliens, transporting aliens for financial gain, and conspiracy to harbor aliens for financial gain.
  • Keathley v. Buddy Ayers Construction, Inc., 24-60025, appeal from N.D. Miss.
    • per curiam (Higginbotham, Stewart, Haynes), Haynes, J., concurring in judgment; personal tort, bankruptcy
    • Affirming summary judgment dismissal of plaintiff’s vehicle-accident claim on grounds of judicial estoppel because Keathley had failed to disclose his cause of action against BAC in his pending bankruptcy proceedings.
    • Judge Haynes separately concurred in the judgment. “I respectfully disagree with our precedent in cases like the present. Although Keathley’s bankruptcy case was ongoing, it was the district court that determined he should be judicially estopped from proceeding with his unrelated personal injury claim. In a situation like this one, where the personal injury lawsuit was filed in a different district (and even a different circuit) and involves a defendant unrelated to the ongoing bankruptcy proceedings, I believe it best to defer to the bankruptcy court’s evaluation regarding whether the plaintiff should be allowed to proceed.”
  • Bauer v. Smith, 24-60521, appeal from N.D. Miss.
    • per curiam (Davis, Stewart, Southwick), judicial immunity
    • Affirming district court’s denial of injunctive relief against state court judge arising from discovery proceedings in state court case.