Take the Fifth

Designated for publication

• Alexander v. Philip R. Taft Psy D and Associated, P.L.L.C., 24-10663, appeal from N.D. Tex.
  • Douglas, J. (Dennis, Oldham, Douglas), Dennis, J., dissenting; sec. 1983, pretrial detention
  • Affirming dismissal of claims by pretrial detainee regarding the alleged misuse of suicide watch protocols by county and county officials.
  • Ronnie Alexander, a pretrial detainee at Henderson County Jail, was moved to a “violent cell” after he falsely claimed to be suicidal in hopes of escaping threats in a group holding cell. The violent cell lacked basic sanitation, bedding, and lighting controls, and Alexander remained there for five days, during which he endured squalid conditions and threats from jail staff. He later filed suit alleging that his treatment violated his constitutional rights under the Fourteenth Amendment and that the jail denied him adequate mental health care. The district court dismissed his claims, and the Fifth Circuit affirmed.
  • The Fifth Circuit found that while Alexander’s conditions were harsh, they were not unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause. Pretrial detainees, unlike sentenced prisoners, cannot be punished, but the Court emphasized that measures taken to prevent suicide—even if unpleasant—are permissible if reasonably related to a legitimate government interest. The Court accepted Alexander’s factual allegations as true but held that his placement in the violent cell was not punishment; rather, it was a precautionary response to his self-reported suicidal ideation, which jail staff were constitutionally obligated to take seriously.
  • The court also rejected Alexander’s claims regarding the inadequacy of mental health care. While he alleged that the assigned mental health worker, Jessica Phlips, was unqualified and negligent, the court ruled that her actions did not amount to “deliberate indifference,” the high standard required to establish liability under § 1983. Although Phlips ended her evaluation prematurely and failed to notify other professionals, she did interact with Alexander, and the jail provided some level of suicide prevention, satisfying constitutional minimums.
  • Finally, the Fifth Circuit distinguished Alexander’s case from Albritton v. Henderson County, a prior case involving more egregious facts and an inmate with documented severe disabilities. Alexander’s case lacked allegations showing that jail staff or mental health providers acted with culpable intent or exposed him to conditions unrelated to a legitimate governmental objective. As a result, the court declined to impose liability on the jail, its officers, or the contracted mental health providers, and affirmed the dismissal of all claims.
  • Judge Dennis dissented (note that the majority opinion was authored by Judge Douglas, who was appointed to the vacancy created when Judge Dennis took senior status). Judge Dennis opined that the majority overlooked specific, well-pleaded allegations that plausibly show Henderson County jail officials misused suicide watch protocols to punish pretrial detainee Ronnie Alexander after he sought protection from threats in group housing. Judge Dennis wrote that Alexander’s claim—that officers knew he was not suicidal but used his statement as a pretext to move him into an inhumane “violent cell” as retaliation—meets the standard for a plausible due process violation under Bell v. Wolfish. Judge Dennis highlighted that the district court ignored critical facts, dismissed the conditions-of-confinement claim on erroneous legal grounds, and failed to address Alexander’s separate claims regarding inadequate mental health care. Je concluded that the majority wrongly affirms dismissal despite the allegations showing punitive intent disguised as suicide prevention, violating the constitutional rights of a pretrial detainee.

• Navarre v. AIG Property Casualty Co., 24-30639, appeal from W.D. La.
  • Graves, J. (Elrod, King, Graves), insurance
  • Affirming dismissal of homeowner’s claims against insurer for lack of standing, on basis that assignment of post-loss insurance rights from prior homeowner did not occur until after prescriptive period had lapsed on loss.
  • William Navarre purchased a house damaged by Hurricanes Laura and Delta and believed his purchase included an assignment of the previous owners’ post-loss insurance rights under their AIG policy. While the parties signed agreements referencing a future assignment, they did not execute the actual “Assignment & Power of Attorney” until January 2023—over a year after the claim was filed and beyond the two-year prescriptive period required under the insurance policy. Navarre nonetheless filed suit in June 2022, claiming to be the rightful assignee based on earlier agreements. AIG moved for summary judgment, arguing that Navarre lacked standing at the time of filing because no valid assignment had occurred, and the district court agreed.
  • On appeal, the Fifth Circuit affirmed. It found that the documents Navarre relied on—the Addendum and Side Letter—only contemplated a future assignment and did not effect a present transfer of rights. Louisiana law requires a plaintiff to have a real interest in the claim at the time of filing, and any later assignment cannot retroactively create standing or revive a prescribed claim. The court emphasized that clear contract language governs, and courts may not consider extrinsic evidence to alter unambiguous terms. Because the assignment was executed after the prescriptive period had expired, Navarre’s claims were time-barred and properly dismissed.

• Williams v. BP Exploration & Production Co., 24-60095, appeal from S.D. Miss.
  • Higginbotham, J. (Elrod, Higginbotham, Southwick), toxic tort, expert witness
  • Affirming exclusion of plaintiff’s expert reports and summary judgment dismissing claims arising from exposure to substances used in cleanup of Deepwater Horizon discharge.
  • In the aftermath of the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill, Matthew Williams performed clean-up work and was later diagnosed with chronic pansinusitis. Claiming the condition resulted from exposure to oil and dispersants, Williams brought a BELO (Back-End Litigation Option) suit against BP, supported by expert testimony from Drs. Michael Freeman and James Clark. BP moved to exclude both experts under Daubert and Rule 702, arguing the reports failed to establish a reliable basis for causation. The district court agreed, excluded the expert testimony, and granted summary judgment to BP. Williams appealed, challenging both the exclusion of the expert reports and the summary judgment ruling.
  • The Fifth Circuit affirmed the lower court’s decisions. The court rejected Williams’ argument that the “featherweight” causation standard applied, clarifying that Daubert’s reliability requirements under Rule 702 govern admissibility regardless of the plaintiff’s burden of proof in maritime cases. Dr. Freeman’s specific causation opinion, which employed a differential etiology, was found unreliable because it lacked meaningful analysis of alternative causes and failed to apply the method properly. The court concluded the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding Freeman’s methodology deficient. Similarly, Dr. Clark’s report was found unreliable due to careless preparation—referring to a different plaintiff—and flawed data assumptions, including an admitted overestimation of benzene exposure. His conclusions, the court noted, were unsupported even by his own corrected exposure figures.
  • Because both expert reports were excluded, Williams lacked admissible evidence to establish specific causation—a requirement in toxic tort cases. On appeal, Williams’ argument against summary judgment merely reiterated his claim that the experts were wrongly excluded. He also alleged BP had misrepresented the legal standard, but failed to show the district court relied on those statements. The Fifth Circuit conducted a de novo review and found no genuine dispute of material fact as to causation. Accordingly, it upheld the exclusion of both expert reports and affirmed the grant of summary judgment to BP.

Unpublished decisions

• U.S. v. Espinoza, 24-10940, appeal from N.D. Tex.
  • per curiam (King, Haynes, Ho), criminal, sufficiency of evidence
  • Affirming conviction for attempted enticement of a minor.

• U.S. v. Bowman, 24-11083, appeal from N.D. Tex.
  • per curiam (King, Haynes, Ho), criminal, sentencing
  • Affirming conviction and 120-month sentence for possession of child pornography.

• Lavigne v. Hooper, 23-30807, appeal from M.D. La.
  • per curiam (Clement, Graves, Willett), habeas corpus, ineffective assistance of counsel
  • Granting petition for panel rehearing, and substituting with decision affirming in part and reversing in part denial of habeas relied, and remanding for further proceedings: “We conclude that while trial counsel was deficient, that deficiency did not cause any prejudice, foreclosing an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim. We also conclude that the district court erred in denying an evidentiary hearing because there is a factual dispute that if resolved in petitioner’s favor would entitle him to relief.”

• Regalado v. ExamWorks, L.L.C., 24-50230, c/w Steuerwald v. ExamWorks, L.L.C., 24-50241, c/w Moore v. ExamWorks, L.L.C., 24-50264, appeal from W.D. Tex.
  • per curiam (Elrod, Jones, Stewart), breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, standing, Rule 59(e)
  • Affirming district court’s dismissal for lack of standing of chiropractors’ claims against a medical billing and scheduling provider the plaintiffs allegedoverbilled their patients’ insurers for their services; and affirming denial of Rule 59(e) motions.

• U.S. v. Cortez-Zepeda, 24-50418, appeal from W.D. Tex.
  • per curiam (Dennis, Haynes, Engelhardt), criminal
  • Affirming conviction for illegal reentry.

• U.S. v. Silva, 24-50621, appeal from W.D. Tex.
  • per curiam (Elrod, King, Graves), criminal, sentencing
  • Affirming 60-month sentence on conviction of conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute cocaine.

• Mar-Jac Poultry MS, L.L.C. v. Secretary, 24-60026, petition for review of OSHA order
  • per curiam (Dennis, Southwick, Engelhardt), labor law
  • Denying petition for review of OSHA order affirming the Secretary of Labor’s citation alleging serious violations of two occupational safety and health regulations.

• Cano-Flores v. Bondi, 24-60582, petition for review of BIA order
  • per curiam (Elrod, Higginson, Ramirez), immigration
  • Denying Honduran citizens’ petition for review of BIA order upholding an immigration judge’s denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.

• Traffic Jam Events, L.L.C. v. FTC, 21-60947, appeal from Federal Trade Commission
  • Richman, J. (Stewart, Dennis, Richman), FTC Act, administrative law, deceptive trade practices
  • Denying petition for review of FTC order “that, among other requirements, banned Traffic Jam and its president, David Jeansonne II, from participating in businesses involving advertising, marketing, promoting, distributing, selling, or leasing motor vehicles.”