Take the Fifth

Designated for publication

• Pool v. City of Houston, 24-20138, appeal from S.D. Tex.
  • Douglas, J. (Smith, Higginson, Douglas) (oral argument), sec. 1988, standing, attorneys’ fees
  • Affirming vacatur of attorneys’ fee award after vacatur of declaratory judgment relief for lack of standing in plaintiff’s constitutional challenge to city’s home rule charter.
  • Plaintiffs-Appellants challenged provisions of the City of Houston home-rule charter requiring initiative petition circulators to be Houston residents and registered voters, arguing this violated the First Amendment under Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Foundation. The case had an unusual procedural history: in an earlier appeal (Pool I), the Fifth Circuit held Plaintiffs had standing and that the City’s post-suit disavowal of enforcement did not moot the case. On remand, the district court entered a declaratory judgment, the City amended its charter, and Plaintiffs obtained attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. However, in a subsequent appeal (Pool II), a different Fifth Circuit panel concluded there was no Article III case or controversy because all parties agreed the charter provisions were unconstitutional, vacated the final judgment, and remanded with instructions to dismiss the case without prejudice.
  • On this third appeal, the sole issue was whether the district court properly vacated the prior award of attorney’s fees and expenses under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(5) in light of Pool II’s determination that there was no justiciable case from the outset. The Fifth Circuit unanimously affirmed. The court explained that because Pool II held the district court lacked jurisdiction due to no case or controversy, the merits judgments (including the declaratory judgment that formed the basis for prevailing-party status) were effectively nullified. As those judgments “formed the basis” of the fee award, vacating the fee award under Rule 60(b)(5) was appropriate.
  • The panel rejected Appellants’ arguments that (1) the Supreme Court’s Lackey v. Stinnie decision controlled; (2) the fee award should stand because the City did not appeal it; and (3) vacating the award was unfairly prejudicial. The court distinguished Lackey because here Plaintiffs had a declaratory judgment (not merely a preliminary injunction) and the charter changes were judicially compelled. It also agreed with precedent that Rule 60(b)(5) relief is proper even without a direct appeal of the fee award when the underlying merits judgment has been vacated, and further held that claims of prejudice did not outweigh the equitable justification for vacatur.

Unpublished decisions

• U.S. v. Rivera, 25-10597, appeal from N.D. Tex.
  • per curiam (Richman, Southwick, Willett) (no oral argument), criminal
  • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.

• U.S. v. Martinez, 25-10602, appeal from N.D. Tex.
  • per curiam (King, Haynes, Ho) (no oral argument), criminal
  • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.

• U.S. v. Cornett, 25-10647, appeal from N.D. Tex.
  • per curiam (Richman, Southwick, Willett) (no oral argument), criminal
  • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.

• U.S. v. White, 25-10683, appeal from N.D. Tex.
  • per curiam (King, Haynes, Ho) (no oral argument), criminal
  • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.

• U.S. v. Mitchell, 25-10864, appeal from N.D. Tex.
  • per curiam (Elrod, Smith, Stewart) (no oral argument), criminal, supervised release
  • Affirming revocation of supervised release.

• U.S. ex rel. Frey v. Health Management Systems, Inc., 24-11018, appeal from N.D. Tex.
  • per curiam (Barksdale, Willett, Duncan) (oral argument), qui tam
  • Affirming summary judgment dismissal of qui tam action.

• Fletcher v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., 25-20086, appeal from S.D. Tex.
  • per curiam (Elrod, Smith, Wilson) (oral argument withdrawn), Fair Credit Reporting Act, sanctions, Rule 11
  • Vacating sanctions order against plaintiff on FCRA claim, on the basis that the sanctions were imposed without adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard, and remanding for further proceedings.

• Stringfellow v. Texas, 25-20226, appeal from S.D. Tex.
  • per curiam (King, Haynes, Ho) (no oral argument), Rule 8, eviction
  • Affirming dismissal of complaint arising from eviction, for failure to comply with order to amend complaint to comply with Rule 8.

• U.S. v. Nformangum, 24-20515, appeal from S.D. Tex.
  • per curiam (Haynes, Duncan, Ramirez) (oral argument withdrawn), criminal, sufficiency of evidence, First Amendment
  • Affirming conviction for leaving a threatening voicemail message at the office of a United States Senator.

• Hankins v. Martin, 25-30114, appeal from E.D. La.
  • per curiam (Elrod, Smith, Wilson) (no oral argument), qualified immunity
  • Affirming qualified immunity summary judgment for officer defendants.

• U.S. v. Allen, 25-30138, appeal from W.D. La.
  • per curiam (Jones, Richman, Ramirez) (no oral argument), habeas corpus
  • Dismissing as moot appeal from denial of IFP status to appeal denial of certificate of appealability.

• Trahant v. Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors, 23-30466, appeal from E.D. La.
  • Richman, J. (Richman, Oldham, Ramirez) (oral argument), bankruptcy, sanctions
  • Affirming the district court’s judgment affirming the bankruptcy court’s finding of contempt and imposition of sanctions against creditor committee attorney; “Richard Trahant received confidential information regarding sexual abuse allegations against a New Orleans priest while serving as state court counsel for several alleged victims of sexual abuse who were also members of the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors. Despite a protective order prohibiting the disclosure of confidential information revealed during discovery, Trahant contacted the principal of a local high school to confirm that the priest remained the high school’s chaplain. Trahant then sent an email to a journalist listing the priest’s name in the subject line, identifying where the priest was employed, and advising the journalist to ‘[k]eep this guy on your radar.’ The bankruptcy court held Trahant in contempt for violating the protective order and sanctioned him for his conduct.”

• U.S. v. Garcia, 25-40279, appeal from S.D. Tex.
  • per curiam (Higginbotham, Engelhardt, Ramirez) (no oral argument), criminal, sentencing
  • Affirming sentence on conviction of possession with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine.

• U.S. v. Madrid, 24-50946, appeal from W.D. Tex.
  • per curiam (Higginbotham, Engelhardt, Ramirez) (no oral argument), criminal, sentencing
  • Affirming sentence on conviction of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute 50 grams or more of actual methamphetamine.

• Garcia-Manzanarez v. Bondi, 25-60284, petition for review of BIA order
  • per curiam (Higginbotham, Engelhardt, Ramirez) (no oral argument), immigration
  • Denying Salvadoran citizen’s petition for review of BIA order dismissing her appeal of an Immigration Judge’s order that she be removed and denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.