July 21, 2025, opinions

Posted on by tadbartlett
  • Carter v. City of Shreveport, 23-30848, appeal from W.D. La.
    • Richman, J. (Richman, Willett, Douglas), Americans with Disabilities Act, sec. 1983, expert witness
    • Affirming district court’s exclusion of plaintiff’s expert witness and grant of Rule 50 motion dismissing plaintiff’s ADA claim.
    • William Carter, a paraplegic man, was jailed for eight days in the Shreveport City Jail for unauthorized use of 911. Prior to his incarceration, Carter had existing bedsores on his buttocks and hip that required regular dressing changes performed by his mother. While in jail, Carter was examined twice by Dr. Dixon, who noted the need for wet-to-dry dressing changes and assistance that the jail could not adequately provide. The jailers testified they neither understood Dr. Dixon’s notes as requiring action nor were trained to handle such medical care. Carter was released shortly after his second examination, but his wounds allegedly worsened during his incarceration, leading to a hospital admission weeks later due to infected bedsores, a urinary tract infection, and other related complications.
    • Carter’s mother sued as his “next friend,” alleging claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for failure to provide medical care, the Americans with Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act (ADA/RA) for failure to accommodate his disability, and Louisiana negligence law. Before trial, the district court excluded the testimony of Plaintiff’s expert, Dr. Joel Nitzkin, due to questions about his qualifications and reliability. During trial, the court granted Defendants’ Rule 50 motion on the ADA/RA claim, holding that Carter’s allegations related to medical treatment rather than disability-based discrimination. The jury then returned a verdict for Defendants on both the § 1983 and state negligence claims. On appeal, Plaintiff challenged the Rule 50 ruling and the exclusion of the expert testimony.
    • The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s rulings. It held that the ADA/RA claim was not actionable because it amounted to a complaint of negligent medical care, which the ADA does not cover. The court found no evidence of intentional discrimination in Carter’s placement in a segregated cell, as it was meant to protect him rather than harm him. The disparate treatment and failure-to-accommodate theories both failed due to lack of proof of discriminatory intent. As the ADA/RA claim failed as a matter of law, and Dr. Nitzkin’s testimony was only relevant to claims not at issue on appeal, the exclusion of his testimony was not reviewed.

Unpublished decisions

  • Barton v. Thomas, 25-10367, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Davis, Stewart, Southwick), bankruptcy
    • Affirming judgment in adversary proceeding based on parties’ agreed terms.
  • Tepe v. Internal Revenue Service, 24-10742, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Stewart, Willett, Wilson), tax
    • Dismissing appeal of dismissal of plaintiff’s suit, and denying various IFP motions.
  • U.S. v. Bolar, 24-11090, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Higginbotham, Engelhardt, Ramirez), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Moreno, 24-20192, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Jones, Duncan, Douglas), criminal, compassionate release
    • Affirming denial of motion for compassionate release.
  • U.S. v. Tchouala, 24-20384, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Barksdale, Haynes, Wilson), criminal, guilty plea
    • Dismissing appeal of sentence pursuant to appeal-waiver in guilty plea agreement.
  • U.S. v. McNair, 24-30760, appeal from W.D. La.
    • per curiam (Jones, Duncan, Douglas), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Esquivel-Florian, 24-40131, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (King, Haynes, Ho), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming supervised release terms as part of sentence for conviction of conspiracy to harbor aliens and harboring aliens.
  • U.S. v. Aguilar-Rosas, 24-20814, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Stewart, Willett, Wilson), criminal, sentence reduction
    • Dismissing as frivolous appeal from denial of motion to reduce supervised release.