April 8, 2026, opinions

Posted on by tadbartlett

Unpublished decisions

  • Pete v. Equifax, Inc., 25-40457, appeal from E.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Jones, Duncan, Douglas) (no oral argument), civil
    • Affirming dismissal of plaintiff’s suit under Rule 41(b).
    • David Pete, proceeding pro se, sued Equifax and JND Legal Administration for $200 billion under various theories. The district court denied his in forma pauperis motion—finding he had falsely claimed the U.S. Attorney General owed him more than $100 quintillion—and ordered him to pay the filing fee, warning that failure to comply risked dismissal under Rule 41(b). Pete did not pay, and the court dismissed the case. On appeal, Pete argued the district court erred in granting summary judgment, but no summary-judgment order existed. Because Pete made no argument challenging the Rule 41(b) dismissal, even under a liberal construction of his brief, the Fifth Circuit held he waived the issue. The court further noted that, even absent waiver, the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the complaint sua sponte under Rule 41(b).
  • Marquardt v. City of New Orleans, 24-30802, appeal from E.D. La.
    • per curiam (Elrod, Richman, Willett) (oral argument), taking, attorneys’ fees
    • Affirming finding of a limited regulatory taking and award of attorneys’ fees.
    • Issues on appeal were (1) Whether a short-term rental (STR) operator’s nonconforming use under New Orleans’s Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance entitles her to operate indefinitely beyond her permits’ expiration dates, implicating the Takings Clause; and (2) whether the City of New Orleans forfeited its challenge to an attorney-fee award by raising new arguments for the first time on appeal.
    • On remand, the district court entered an amended judgment finding a Takings Clause violation but limiting it to the permits’ express duration and awarding attorney fees. Marquardt argued her nonconforming use of the property as an STR should continue indefinitely, relying on the City’s CZO, which states that a lawful nonconformity “may continue.” The Fifth Circuit disagreed, holding that the CZO provision says only that a nonconforming use “may continue,” not that it must continue in perpetuity, and that under Louisiana law nonconforming uses are “viewed narrowly” with “all doubts resolved against continuation or expansion of the nonconformity.” The court also relied on its prior holding that under the City’s permitting scheme, an STR permit “is a privilege, not a right.” The court noted its holding was narrow, observing that the case might look different if Marquardt’s STR use pre-dated any licensing scheme or if the scheme were mandatory rather than discretionary. As to the City’s cross-appeal of the fee award, the Fifth Circuit found the argument forfeited because the City argued only for a reduction—not elimination—of fees in the district court and never challenged Marquardt’s prevailing-party status below.
  • United States v. Ruiz, 25-10996, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Davis, Wilson, Douglas) (no oral argument), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.