November 4, 2025, opinions

Posted on by tadbartlett

Designated for publication

  • Clark v. City of Pasadena, 24-20447, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • Smith, J. (Smith, Stewart, Ramirez) (no oral argument), § 1983, Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, default judgment
    • Affirming district court’s denial of default judgment on plaintiffs’ FDCPA and constitutional claims against defendants arising from eviction from public housing, where “all defendants appeared before the district court, filed an answer, or moved to dismiss [ultimately successfully].”
  • Craig v. Bisignano, 25-50131, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • Ho, J. (Higginbotham, Ho, Douglas) (no oral argument), social security, record on appeal
    • Affirming dismissal of suit challenging denial of application for disability benefits for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, rejecting the tendering as an attachment to the appeal brief of a document purporting to evidence exhaustion that the plaintiff failed to present to the district court prior to its judgment (and which therefore was not properly in the record on appeal).
    • “If Craig wishes to press her claims, she can heed the district court’s instructions and either file a new case or ask the district court to reopen this case. But her post-judgment filing is outside the scope of the record on appeal under Rule 10. And the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction based on the filings made before final judgment.”

Unpublished decisions

  • Williams v. City of Baton Rouge, 24-30723, appeal from M.D. La.
    • per curiam (Jones, Stewart, Ramirez) (oral argument), qualified immunity, municipal liability
    • Affirming summary judgment dismissal of plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment due process claims, as well as various state-law claims, against police officers, police forensic lab workers, and the city arising from allegedly impermissibly suggestive photo lineup and suppression of crime scene evidence.
    • Archie Williams, wrongfully convicted in 1983 of aggravated rape, aggravated burglary, and attempted murder, brought § 1983 and state-law claims against the City of Baton Rouge, several detectives, and two forensic scientists. He alleged that police violated his due process rights by using impermissibly suggestive photo lineups and suppressing exculpatory evidence, while forensic analysts allegedly fabricated or concealed scientific evidence. The district court granted summary judgment to all defendants, holding that they were entitled to qualified immunity and that Williams had not provided evidence to sustain his Monell or state-law claims. After spending thirty-six years imprisoned before exoneration by fingerprint evidence identifying another perpetrator, Williams appealed the adverse rulings.
    • The Fifth Circuit reviewed the summary-judgment record de novo and affirmed. It held that the detectives’ identification procedures were not so impermissibly suggestive or unreliable as to violate due process. Applying Simmons v. United States and Neil v. Biggers, the court found that the victim’s repeated exposure to Williams’s photo did not create a “very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification,” given her direct view of her assailant, her attention to details like his arm scar, her prompt identification, and the opportunity for cross-examination at trial. Williams’s expert criticism of the lineups was deemed speculative and insufficient to create a genuine factual dispute. The panel also upheld summary judgment on his state-law tort claims, finding that he had forfeited them by inadequate briefing and, regardless, that the district court acted within its discretion in declining supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing the federal claims.
    • The court likewise rejected Williams’s Monell theory against the City, concluding he had shown neither a constitutional violation nor a municipal policy amounting to deliberate indifference. As for the forensic scientists, the panel held that they, too, were entitled to qualified immunity because Brady obligations were not clearly established for laboratory technicians in the early 1980s. Even assuming Brady applied, the record showed no suppression of material evidence or bad faith. The allegedly undisclosed fingerprint photograph was available to the defense and immaterial, and the serology report’s failure to note broader population statistics or perform enzyme testing did not constitute a due-process violation. Finding no triable constitutional claim or factual dispute, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s complete grant of summary judgment to the City, police, and forensic defendants.
  • U.S. v. Nerey-Valdivia, 25-40034, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Dennis, Engelhardt, Wilson) (no oral argument), criminal, sufficiency of evidence
    • Affirming conviction of transporting undocumented individuals.
  • Gonzalez v. Noem, 25-40121, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Smith, Stewart, Ramirez) (no oral argument), immigration
    • Affirming summary judgment against plaintiff on claims to review under the APA the U.S. Citizen and Immigration Service’s denial of plaintiff’s Form I-130 Petition to alter the immigration status of his wife, which sought to recognize the entitlement to immigration benefits based on their marriage.
  • Banda v. City of McAllen, 24-40508, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Smith, Stewart, Ramirez) (no oral argument), municipal liability, removal jurisdiction, equal protection
    • Affirming removal to federal court, and subsequent dismissal, of plaintiff’s suit alleging a Monell gender-based equal protection claim.