Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against the medical administrator and a medical services contractor for the Mississippi Department of Corrections, alleging that defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights by failing to provide medically necessary hip replacement and reconstructive surgery. The district court granted summary judgment for defendants.The Fifth Circuit held that the district court properly granted summary judgment in the contractor's favor because there was no evidence that he failed to take reasonable measures to abate a substantial risk of serious harm to plaintiff. However, because the district court failed to address the Ex parte Young exception to sovereign immunity for claims for prospective injunctive relief as to the administrator, the court held that the injunctive relief claim should be remanded. The court further held that factual disputes about the reason for the delay prevented it from determining whether the administrator violated plaintiff's constitutional rights. Therefore, the court reversed as to this claim and remanded for further proceedings. Finally, the court vacated the district court's judgment denying appointment of counsel and remanded for reconsideration. View "Delaughter v. Woodall" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit denied a petition for rehearing en banc; treated the petition for rehearing en banc as a petition for panel rehearing; and granted the petition for panel rehearing. The court withdrew its prior opinion and substituted the following opinion.Three exotic dancers under the age of 21 filed suit challenging Louisiana's amendment of two statutes (Act No. 395) that required entertainers on premises licensed to serve alcohol and whose breasts or buttocks are exposed to view be 21 years of age or older. The district court concluded that plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their claims that the Act was unconstitutionally overbroad and vague, and issued a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of the Act.The court vacated the injunction and held that the district court erred in holding that the Act was overbroad, either for the lack of narrow tailoring necessary under United States v. O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367, 376 (1968), or for "substantial overbreadth" under such cases as Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 612 (1973). Determining that plaintiffs had standing to bring their vagueness claim, the court held that the Act survived a facial challenge for vagueness. The court explained that it was enough that the Act required the full coverage of commonly understood anatomical terms. Accordingly, the court remanded for further proceedings. View "Doe v. Marine-Lombard" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit denied petitioner's application for a certificate of appealability (COA) to challenge the denial of his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) motion. The court held that there were no extraordinary circumstances meriting Rule 60(b)(6) relief. The court held that, even if petitioner's claims were not procedurally defaulted under Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1, 14 (2012), and Trevino v. Thaler, 569 U.S. 413, 428 (2013), he was ineligible for Rule 60(b)(6) relief. Furthermore, petitioner neither alleged racial discrimination nor demonstrated how his claims gave rise to the sort of pernicious injury that affects communities at large. View "Raby v. Davis" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for the employer in an action alleging retaliation under Texas law. The court held that, although the district court erred by concluding that New Mexico law applied in this case, the protected conduct plaintiff described was not a but-for cause of their terminations. The court explained that an employee bringing a retaliation claim under the Texas Occupational Code must demonstrate that he would not have been terminated but for his protected conduct. In this case, plaintiffs' refusal to train a patient independently was not a necessary, or but-for, cause of the firings. View "Almeida v. Bio-Medical Applications of Texas, Inc." on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal of a petition for habeas corpus based on lack of jurisdiction. At issue was whether petitioner was "in custody" under the challenged state court judgment. The court held that, because it was undisputed that petitioner will be civilly committed upon the completion of his criminal sentence, he was "in custody" under the civil commitment order when he filed his 28 U.S.C. 2254 petition. Accordingly, the court remanded for the district court to consider the petition in the first instance. View "Rubio v. Davis" on Justia Law

After the dismissal of defendant's 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion, he filed a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) motion to alter the judgment. The district court dismissed the Rule 59(e) motion without an evidentiary hearing.The Fifth Circuit held that it did not have jurisdiction to review defendant's claims because the Rule 59(e) motion constituted a successive 28 U.S.C. 2255 application under Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 532 (2005). The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant an evidentiary hearing because he has not provided independent indicia of the merit of his allegations. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part and dismissed in part. View "United States v. McDaniels" on Justia Law

Three Expo filed suit against the City and sought a preliminary injunction preventing the City from enforcing Resolution No. 160308, which denied Three Expo's requests to contract with the City to hold a three-day adult entertainment expo at the Dallas Convention Center. The district court denied Three Expo's motion for a preliminary injunction.The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's judgment, holding Three Expo established the three elements required for standing on each of its claims and should be permitted to proceed with its suit. The court held that the district court's decision that Three Expo lacked standing was based on clear errors in the factual findings and the district court's manifest failure to apply the well-established principles of law governing Article III standing to the entire evidence of record. View "Three Expo Events, LLC v. City of Dallas" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Chapter 121 of the Texas Human Resources Code (THRC), alleging that CSL Plasma did not accept plaintiffs' plasma donations based on plaintiffs' disabilities. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the action and held that CSL Plasma was not a "service establishment" within the definition of "public accommodation" under the ADA. The court explained that CSL Plasma paid plaintiffs for the inconvenience of donating plasma so that it can collect a commercially valuable asset. The court certified the THRC issue to the Supreme Court of Texas. View "Silguero v. CSL Plasma, Inc." on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of a petition for habeas corpus relief as untimely. The court held that petitioner failed to present new evidence of actual innocence under Moore v. Quarterman, 534 F.3d 454 (5th Cir. 2008), and thus he failed to make the showing necessary for this court to consider his claims despite the expired limitations period. In this case, petitioner failed to establish that affidavits supporting his claim of actual innocence were unavailable to counsel at the time of trial. View "Hancock v. Davis" on Justia Law

A certified class of minor children in the Permanent Managing Conservatorship (PMC) of DFPS filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, seeking injunctive relief and alleging that Texas' maintenance of its foster care system exposes them to a serious risk of abuse, neglect, and harm to their physical and psychological well-being. The district court granted plaintiffs a permanent injunction requiring sweeping changes to the state's foster care system.The Fifth Circuit held that facts in the record adequately supported the finding that a policy or practice of maintaining overburdened caseworkers directly causes all PMC children to be exposed to a serious risk of physical and psychological harm; the district court correctly found that the State was deliberately indifferent to a substantial risk of serious harm to the Licensed Foster Care (LFC) subclass as a result of its insufficient monitoring and oversight, and that these deficiencies were a direct cause of the constitutional harm; the district court erred in concluding that inadequate placement array causes constitutionally cognizable harm to the LFC subclass and that the State was deliberately indifferent to a substantial risk of serious harm; and to the extent that the lack of awake-night supervision may have sustained a constitutional claim under the circumstances, the remaining policies and their effects did not cause foster group homes (FGH) children an amplified risk of harm sufficient to overcome the threshold hurdle.The court also held that Rule 23-specific arguments were waived. While the district court entered an expansive injunction mandating dozens of specific remedial measures and it was entitled to grant plaintiffs injunctive relief, the court held that the injunction was significantly overbroad. Accordingly, the court vacated the injunction and remanded with instructions to remove the remedial provisions related to placement array and FGHs, and to strike provisions that were not necessary to achieve constitutional compliance. View "M.D. v. Abbott" on Justia Law