Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of the petition for habeas corpus relief based on petitioner's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. The court agreed with the district court that there is no reasonable probability that a juror would have found that the mitigating evidence, both old and new, outweighed the aggravating evidence. Therefore, the mitigating evidence is not so compelling that it would tip the balance and establish a "substantial" likelihood of a different result. Accordingly, the district court correctly held that petitioner has not proven prejudice to prevail on his Wiggins claim. View "Canales v. Davis" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal for lack of jurisdiction of an action against NAMB for intentional interference with business relationships, defamation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The district court cited the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine and found that it would need to resolve ecclesiastical questions in order to resolve plaintiff's claims. The court held that, at this time, it is not certain that resolution of plaintiff's claims will require the district court to interfere with matters of church government, matters of faith, or matters of doctrine. Accordingly, the court remanded for further proceedings. View "McRaney v. The North American Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention, Inc." on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment based on qualified immunity to a law enforcement officer in a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action. The officer accidentally discharged the firearm and shot Jonathan Bryant in the shoulder while arresting him after a high speed chase. The court held that the district court did not err in admitting opinion evidence that the shooting was accidental. The court also held that there is no fact dispute that the officer unintentionally kept his firearm in his hand as he sought to restrain Bryant. Therefore, plaintiff failed to show a violation of any Fourth Amendment rights. View "Bryant v. Gillem" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, currently incarcerated in Texas, filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 alleging that various employees of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice violated federal law when they deducted a $100 medical co-payment from his inmate trust account. Plaintiff, who receives regular payments from the VA, claimed that this deduction violated 38 U.S.C. 5301(a) and 31 C.F.R. 212.The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendants in regard to plaintiff's claims arising from the TDCJ defendants' purported violations of section 5301(a). In this case, plaintiff's VA benefits were commingled with transfers from his Altra account and with sizeable deposits by a private individual. Therefore, it is impossible to know whether the medical co-payment was charged against funds that originated from the Department of the Treasury and plaintiff cannot state a claim under Section 5301(a), which protects only payments of federal benefits. The court also affirmed the trial court's assessment of filing fees, and affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants on the due process claims. View "Hawes v. Stephens" on Justia Law

Former Texas state judge Suzanne Wooten filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against state and local law enforcement officials, alleging that they violated the Constitution by investigating and prosecuting her in retaliation for unseating an incumbent judge and making rulings they disagreed with. At issue in this appeal was whether defendants are entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity for their alleged acts.The Fifth Circuit held that the district court was without jurisdiction to accept Wooten's second amended complaint; that her first amended complaint remains operative; and that this appeal is not moot. The court also held that it has jurisdiction to hear defendants' appeal regarding prosecutorial immunity and Defendant White and Abbott's official immunity claims. However, the court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear any defendant's appeal on qualified immunity and Defendants Roach and Milner's claims to official immunity.On the merits, the court held that Defendants Roach, White, and Abbott are each entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity. However, the court held that Defendant Milner is not shielded by absolute prosecutorial immunity because he was performing investigative functions that do not qualify for absolute immunity. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Wooten v. Roach" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit denied a petition for panel rehearing and petition for rehearing en banc, withdrew its prior opinion, and substituted the following opinion.Plaintiffs appealed the district court's dismissal, on qualified immunity grounds, of their deliberate-indifference claims against paramedics and police officers employed by the City of Mesquite. Plaintiffs' claims arose out of the death of their 18 year old son from self-inflicted head trauma while in police custody. He died after violently bashing his head over 40 times against the interior of a patrol car while being transported to jail.The court held that the complaint failed to allege facts that plausibly show the paramedics' deliberate indifference. In this case, plaintiffs alleged that the paramedics failed to provide additional care. However, the court held that precedent has consistently recognized that deliberate indifference cannot be inferred merely from a negligent or even a grossly negligent response to a substantial risk of serious harm.The court also held that the district court correctly found a genuine dispute concerning whether Officers Gafford and Heidelburg were deliberately indifferent to the serious medical needs of a detainee in their custody. However, the court held that the district court erroneously granted summary judgment to Officer Scott where there are genuine disputes of material fact as to whether Officer Scott, like Gafford and Heidelburg, acted with deliberate indifference to the son's serious medical needs. Furthermore, the court held that a reasonable jury could find the Officers' conduct contravened clearly established law. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded in part. View "Dyer v. City of Mesquite" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the school district in an action brought by a student, alleging Title IX and constitutional claims stemming from her abuse by two school employees who were later criminally prosecuted.Under the Supreme Court's decision in Gebser v. Lago Vista Independent School District, a school district is not liable under Title IX for teacher-on-student harassment unless the district, among other things, had "actual notice" of the misconduct and was "deliberately indifferent" to it. The court held that the school peace officer is not an "appropriate person" for purposes of Title IX. The court also held that the school district did not have knowledge of prior acts of sexual harassment that provided actual knowledge of a risk of substantial harm under Title IX. Finally, the court held that the school district does not have municipal liability under 42 U.S.C. 1983. View "Doe v. Edgewood Independent School District" on Justia Law

After plaintiff was denied tenure as an assistant professor of Legal Studies at the University of Mississippi, he filed suit against several university officials in their individual capacities, alleging that they violated his substantive due process rights when they evaluated his eligibility for tenure in an arbitrary and capricious manner. A jury subsequently awarded plaintiff over $200,000 in damages for lost wages and past and future pain and suffering.The Fifth Circuit reversed and rendered judgment in favor of defendants, holding that the district court erred when it denied defendants' motions for qualified immunity and concluded that plaintiff had a clearly established property interest. In this case, plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the language in his contract that allegedly guaranteed him a "fair process of tenure review" gave rise to a clearly-established property right. View "Wigginton v. Jones" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity to defendant on plaintiff's claim of deliberate indifference under 42 U.S.C. 1983. Plaintiff alleged that defendant was deliberately indifferent to her serious medical needs resulting from an alleged psychological crisis when defendant failed to take any measures to address plaintiff's risk of suicide.The court held that plaintiff failed to establish a triable material issue of fact showing either that defendant's actions, which led to a three-hour delay in medical treatment, manifested deliberate indifference or that defendant's conduct was objectively unreasonable under clearly established law. In this case, the record does not support an inference that while in defendant's custody plaintiff faced a substantial risk of suicide. Furthermore, defendant's conduct did not amount to inaction in response to plaintiff's outcry for psychological assistance. View "Baldwin v. Dorsey" on Justia Law

In 2014, plaintiffs, African-American voters and the Terrebonne Parish NAACP, filed suit to challenge the electoral method for Louisiana's 32nd Judicial District Court (JDC), alleging that at-large elections for the judges produce discriminatory results, violating Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, and have been maintained for a discriminatory purpose in violation of that statute and the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. The district court upheld both claims and ordered a remedial plan breaking the 32nd JDC into five single-member electoral subdistricts.The Fifth Circuit reversed, holding that the district court clearly erred in its finding of minority vote dilution in the election of judges for Terrebonne Parish's 32nd JDC. The court held that the district court erred in holding that weak evidence of vote dilution could overcome the state's substantial interest in linking judicial positions to the judges' parish-wide jurisdiction. Furthermore, the district court erroneously equated failed legislative attempts to create subdistricts for the 32nd JDC with a racially discriminatory intent. View "Fusilier v. Landry" on Justia Law