March 10, 2025, opinions

Posted on by tadbartlett

Designated for publication

  • Osborne v. Belton, 23-30829, appeal from W.D. La.
    • per curiam (Elrod, Oldham, Wilson), Fair Housing Act, Rule 60(b), notice of appeal
    • Affirming denial of landlord defendant’s Rule 60(b) motion after summary judgment for plaintiff tenant on claims of disability discrimination and retaliation under the Fair Housing Act, finding no abuse of discretion.
    • The Court held that the original summary judgment, the judgment denying the defendant’s first Rule 60(b) motion to set aside the summary judgment, and the judgment denying the defendant’s second post-judgment (Rule 59(e)) motion were all within the scope of the notice of appeal. “[I]f a party designates a post-judgment order in his notice of appeal, any orders disposing of post-judgment motions between the time of the underlying judgment and the specific post-judgment order designated in the notice of appeal should be construed as being included in the notice of appeal.”
    • The Court then held that the notice of appeal was untimely as to the underlying summary judgment, because the Rule 60(b) motion was not filed until almost a year after it was rendered. “This is because, to reset the notice of appeal deadline via a Rule 60(b) motion, the Rule 60(b) motion must be filed ‘within the time allowed for filing a motion under Rule 59’—i.e., 28 days after entry of the judgment. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A)(vi). Here, Belton filed his Rule 60(b) motion 355 days after entry of the judgment, meaning that the notice of appeal deadline for the summary judgment order was not reset.” The notice of appeal was timely filed, however, as to the Rule 60(b) and Rule 59(e) judgments.
    • Because an appeal filed from a Rule 59(e) judgment merges the review of that judgment with the judgment underlying the Rule 59(e) motion, the Court held that it was only reviewing the Rule 60(b) denial from which the Rule 59(e) motion was taken.
    • Finally, on the merits, the Court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Rule 60(b) motion “because Belton did not establish that he was entitled to relief on any of the available grounds.”
  • Kafi, Inc. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 24-40167, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • Engelhardt, J. (Ho, Engelhardt, Douglas), foreclosure
    • Affirming district court’s summary judgment in favor of bank that the bank had standing to foreclose on the residential property owned by the plaintiff and rejecting the plaintiff’s claim for equitable redemption.

Unpublished

  • U.S. v. Ortiz, 24-10379, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Graves, Willett, Wilson), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Mata, 24-10443, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Smith, Graves, Engelhardt), criminal, compassionate release
    • Dismissing as frivolous appeal from denial of motion for compassionate release.
  • U.S. v. Johnson, 24-10495, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Haynes, Higginson, Douglas), criminal
    • Affirming conviction of possession of a firearm by a felon.
  • Williams v. Dudek, 24-20409, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Davis, Stewart, Southwick), social security
    • Affirming denial of supplemental security income benefits fot the months preceding the onset date.
  • U.S. v. Munoz, 24-30534, appeal from W.D. La.
    • per curiam (Richman, Douglas, Ramirez), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • Bogdanov v. Ainley, 24-30625, appeal from W.D. La.
    • per curiam (Smith, Stewart, Duncan), habeas corpus, Federal Tort Claims Act, mootness
    • Dismissing as moot Russian citizen’s § 2241 petition and FTCA suit challenging his detention pending asylum proceedings, as petitioner had been ordered removed “and his detention is now governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1231.”
  • Broussard v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 24-30664, appeal from M.D. La.
    • per curiam (Davis, Smith, Higginson), employment, ERISA, preemption
    • Affirming dismissal of former employee’s suit against employer for breach of contract, failure to pay vacation and shift-differential pay under state law, as preempted under ERISA.
  • U.S. v. Quintana-Ojeda, 24-50592, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Smith, Stewart, Duncan), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming conviction and sentence for illegal reentry.
  • U.S. v. Nunez-Coronado, 24-50747, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Jolly, Jones, Willett), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming 15-month sentence on conviction of illegal reentry.
  • Taylor v. Baskett, 24-50990, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Jolly, Jones, Willett), § 1983
    • Dismissing as frivolous appeal from dismissal of § 1983 claim that officer responding to hit-and-run death of her son did not inform her of his death in a timely manner.
  • Morgan v. Bray, 24-60156, appeal from N.D. Miss.
    • per curiam (Richman, Willett, Douglas), Title VII
    • Affirming dismissal of plaintiff’s Title VII claims for failure to timely exhaust administrative remedies.
  • Mira-Castro v. Bondi, 24-60440, petition for review of BIA order
    • per curiam (Barksdale, Haynes, Wilson), immigration
    • Dismissing in part and denying in part Salvadoran citizen’s petition for review of BIA’s denying his motion to reopen his proceedings, filed approximately 20 years after his first appeal was affirmed by the BIA.
  • U.S. v. Sam, 23-60570, appeal from S.D. Miss.
    • per curiam (Graves, Willett, Wilson), criminal
    • Affirming dismissal of indictment for possessing a firearm while being an unlawful user of a controlled substance.