Note: Included cases are from July 1, 2024, through July 31, 2024.
Civil Rights: Verastique v. City of Dallas, 106 F.4th 427 (5th Cir. 2024). Protestors participating in “George Floyd” demonstrations in Dallas filed a Section 1983 action against city, county, and county sheriff’s office asserting municipal liability claims in connection with officers’ use of force during protest. The district court dismissed the claims, and the protestors appealed.
The court of appeals affirmed, holding that: (1) the protestors failed to plausibly establish a pattern of conduct that would form the basis for their Section 1983 claims; (2) the protestors failed to plausibly plead the city’s deliberate indifference to its officers’ alleged use of excessive force; and (3) the city’s general order permitting officers to conduct arrests as they saw necessary to quell a civil unrest incident was not unconstitutional on its face.
Civil Rights: Terrell v. Harris Cnty., 107 F.4th 452, 455 (5th Cir. 2024). Terrell, a victim of sexual assault by an off-duty county sheriff’s deputy who took her home from a bar, brought a Section 1983 action against the deputy, a second deputy who allegedly helped force her into a patrol vehicle, the sheriff, and the county, alleging constitutional violations against the deputies, supervisory liability against the sheriff, and municipal liability against the county. The district court: (1) found that the second deputy was entitled to qualified immunity; (2) dismissed without prejudice claims against second deputy, sheriff, and county for failure to state a claim; and (3) following amendment of the complaint, dismissed such claims with prejudice. Terrell appealed.
The court of appeals affirmed, holding that: (1) the second deputy was entitled to qualified immunity from unreasonable seizure claim; (2) the sheriff was not liable on the supervisory liability claim; and (3) the county was not liable to Terrell based on a failure to adopt adequate training.
Civil Rights: Nat’l Fed’n of the Blind of Tex., Inc. v. City of Arlington, No. 23-10034, 2024 WL 3434407 (5th Cir. July 17, 2024). Charities brought a Section 1983 action against the city alleging that an ordinance regulating donation collection boxes was a facially unconstitutional speech restriction under the First Amendment. The ordinance prohibited the placement of a donation box in the city without a permit, regulated the donation boxes’ aesthetics and size, and through zoning, limited the placement of donation boxes to three zoning districts and imposed setback requirements. Both parties moved for summary judgment. The district court granted the charities’ motion in part and denied it in part, and granted the city’s motion in part and denied it in part. The city appealed and the charities cross-appealed.
The court of appeals affirmed in part, and vacated in part, holding that: (1) as a matter of first impression, regulation of donation boxes’ placement was content-neutral; (2) regulation on placement of boxes was constitutional; (3) the setback provision was constitutional; and (4) the permitting provisions were not an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech.
Civil Rights: Springs-Hutchinson v. City of Austin, No. 23-50471, 2024 WL 3451890 (5th Cir. July 18, 2024). Following their son’s death after exchanging gunfire with police officers during the South by Southwest musical festival, the Hutchinsons filed a Section 1983 claim against the officers and the City of Austin, alleging violations of their son’s constitutional rights and failures to properly train police officers. The district court dismissed their case at summary judgment, finding that no constitutional violation occurred.
Civil Rights: SO Apartments, L.L.C. v. City of San Antonio, Tex., No. 23-50706, 2024 WL 3506191 (5th Cir. July 23, 2024). Apartment complex owners challenged the city’s Proactive Apartment Inspection Program (PAIP) which was enacted to address property owners who were not maintaining their property to minimum building code standards on the grounds that: (1) the PAIP violated the Fourth Amendment because it authorized frequent and “warrantless inspections” of private property; (2) the PAIP’s $100 per unit administrative fee violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against excessive fines; and (3) the PAIP denied them the procedural and substantive due process protections of the Fourteenth Amendment. The district court denied the owners’ request for a preliminary injunction.
On interlocutory appeal, the court of appeals affirmed, finding that: (1) the owners were not likely to succeed on claim that city apartment inspection program for problem properties on its face violated the Fourth Amendment; (2) the owners were not likely to succeed on claim that registration fees for city apartment inspection program for problem properties on its face violated the Eighth Amendment; (3) the owners failed to establish a likelihood of success on either of their procedural due process claims; and (4) the owners failed to show that program registration fee constituted a substantive due process violation.
First Amendment; Employment: Washington v. Sunflower Cnty., Mississippi, No. 23-60072, 2024 WL 3510116 (5th Cir. July 23, 2024). County Administrator Washington filed suit against the County Board of Supervisors alleging that he was wrongfully discharged for disclosing a bid-rigging scheme by the county board members to the clerk of the board. The district court found for the county. The appellate court affirmed finding that Washington’s speech was not protected by the First Amendment because he was not speaking as a private citizen on a matter of public concern.