Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

This appeal arose from a dispute between the City and RBIII where the City demolished a dilapidated building on property that RBIII owned. The City did not provide notice to RBIII before razing the structure and RBIII filed suit against the City. The district court granted summary judgment for the City on all claims except a Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process claim and a Fourth Amendment unreasonable search and seizure claim. Those claims were tried to a jury, which returned a verdict in favor of RBIII. The City then appealed. The court agreed with the City's argument on appeal that the district court's jury instructions did not accurately reflect the applicable law and that, under the correct legal standards, it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Accordingly, the court remanded for further proceedings. Because the court vacated the trial court's judgment against the City, the court need not consider the other issues raised in the City's appeal. View "RBIII, L.P. v. City of San Antonio" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a professor at LSU, appealed the district court's dismissal of his complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. Plaintiff alleged discrimination based on his race, religion, national origin, age, and gender. Although plaintiff asserted claims for injunctive and declaratory relief, he could not overcome sovereign immunity under Ex parte Young because he named only LSU, LSU Health, and the LSU Board as defendants. Therefore, the court found that sovereign immunity barred plaintiff's claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. 621 et seq., and 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 1985. Plaintiff's state law claims were also barred by sovereign immunity. With regard to plaintiff's remaining claims, the court recognized that plaintiff was not required to establish a prima facie case of discrimination at the pleading stage, but the court nonetheless concluded that plaintiff had failed to state a claim for which relief could be granted. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Raj v. LSU, et al" on Justia Law

Defendant, an attorney and the brother-in-law of Trent Lott, appealed from the denial of his 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion challenging one of his two convictions for bribing a judge. Defendant's conviction stemmed from his bribe of a circuit court judge in a lawsuit involving a fee-sharing dispute with co-counsel (the "Wilson Case"). Defendant offered to recommend the judge to Lott, who at the time was a U.S. Senator, for a district court judgeship in exchange for the judge's help in winning the Wilson Case. The court concluded that Skilling v. United States, which addressed the constitutionality of the honest-services statute, 18 U.S.C. 1346, had no effect on the district court's subject matter jurisdiction over defendant's guilty plea. Defendant had shown neither his actual innocence of post-Skilling honest-services fraud nor that there was cause and prejudice for failing to raise a constitutional-vagueness challenge to section 1346. Therefore, defendant procedurally defaulted on his claim and the district court correctly denied his section 2255 motion. Finally, the court rejected defendant's First Amendment overbreadth challenge to section 1346. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Scruggs" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a member of the Seventh-day Adventist faith, appealed from the district court's ruling on summary judgment that plaintiff's employer, First Student, reasonably accommodated his religion. Seventh-day Adventists observe the Sabbath from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday, and they emphasize the importance of refraining from secular work during this time. First Student terminated plaintiff for excessive absenteeism when he did not show up to work on Fridays. The court concluded that summary judgment was not appropriate at this stage of the litigation because there were genuine disputes of material fact regarding whether First Student reasonably accommodated plaintiff and whether accommodating plaintiff constituted an undue hardship on First Student. View "Antoine v. First Student, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed from the district court's dismissal of her civil rights action against the District. Plaintiff sought review of her claim under section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. 794, for the District's alleged gross mismanagement of her Individualized Education Program (IEP) and failure to reasonably accommodate her disabilities. Because plaintiff plausibly stated that the District acted with gross misjudgment in failing to further modify her IEP, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. Because plaintiff appealed only the dismissal of her Rehabilitation Act claim, the court did not address the district court's rulings as to the other claims. View "Stewart v. Waco Indep. Sch. Dist." on Justia Law

Plaintiff brought suit against a law enforcement officer, the City of Amarillo, and other defendants, alleging that the officer had wrongfully arrested him two years earlier. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court's dismissal of his suit because he failed to show good cause for the delay in perfection of service. Because the district court's warning of dismissal and grant of extensions accompanied by generous allotments of time did not influence plaintiff to effect service properly, the court could not say that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing plaintiff's claim. View "Thrasher v. Amarillo Police Dept, et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the district court's sua sponte dismissal of his civil rights complaint as frivolous and for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The court held that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing the claim against one corrections officer at the initial screening stage and before the filing of any responsive pleadings. The district court did not err in dismissing plaintiff's denial of medical care claim where the officers did not show deliberate indifference regarding plaintiff's denial of medical treatment and because the officers took plaintiff to see a V.A. hospital physician after the incident at issue and transported him subsequently to the prison medical department for treatment. In regards to the claim regarding plaintiff's injury in the van, the issue was moot. As for the denial of medical care claim, allowing plaintiff to amend his complaint would have been futile and the district court did not err in declining to provide leave to file an amended complaint. Accordingly, the court reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Rogers v. Boatright, et al" on Justia Law

Defendant was found not guilty of second degree murder by reason of insanity and was committed to the Attorney General's custody under 18 U.S.C. 4243(e). Defendant was subsequently found to no longer be a substantial risk to others if he followed a strict treatment regimen and was conditionally released. The district court then later found that defendant failed to comply with the conditions of his release and that he posed a substantial risk of bodily injury to others. Consequently, the district court revoked the release and placed him back into the custody of the Attorney General. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in not calling for a competency hearing; defendant failed to raise a valid Sixth Amendment complaint and the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to replace counsel; and the district court committed no error in its finding underlying the conclusion to revoke the conditional release. Accordingly, the court affirmed the order. View "United States v. Mitchell" on Justia Law

Defendants Mathew Dean Moore and Melvin Williams, former New Orleans Police Officers (NOPD), appealed their convictions and sentences arising from an incident that resulted in the death of an individual. The court concluded that a jury could reasonably conclude from the evidence that the individual's death was proximately caused by and the foreseeable result of being kicked in the chest by Williams; the district court did not err by basing Williams' sentence on the base offense of voluntary manslaughter; the evidence was sufficient to sustain Moore's conviction for aiding and abetting the submission of a false incident report and by obstructing a federal investigation through the submission of a false NOPD incident report and aiding and abetting each other; the evidence was sufficient to sustain Moore's conviction for making false, material statements to the FBI; and the district court did not err in determining Moore's sentence. Accordingly, the court affirmed the convictions and sentences. View "United States v. Moore, et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a former TDCJ employee, appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment for TDCJ on her Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12112(a), and Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), 29 U.S.C. 2612(a)(1)(D), claims. Plaintiff's allergic reaction to the use of scented candles and wall plug-ins around her work area was the basis of her ADA claim. The court held that plaintiff did not suffer from a disability within the meaning and coverage of the ADA. Further, there was no dispute that TDCJ did not receive plaintiff's FMLA certification before the deadline. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Milton v. Texas Dept. of Criminal Justice" on Justia Law