Filemon Bartolome Vela

In Lookingbill v. Johnson, a Texas death-row inmate convicted of capital murder filed a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 after his state conviction and habeas proceedings were completed. The district court considered cross-motions for summary judgment and the petitioner's request for an evidentiary hearing, ultimately granting the state's motion and dismissing the petition. The court held that the petition was untimely under AEDPA's one-year statute of limitations, which began running after the conclusion of direct review and was not sufficiently tolled by the pendency of the state habeas rehearing, the federal motion for appointment of counsel, or equitable considerations. The opinion explains that the petitioner's filing occurred more than a year after the limitations period, even accounting for statutory tolling during properly filed state post-conviction proceedings.

criminal lawprocedure

In Casiano v. United States, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se filed a Bivens action against the United States Attorney and law enforcement officers, alleging malicious prosecution and Fifth Amendment due process violations based on the claimed use of illegally obtained evidence in his underlying 1988 drug conviction and sentencing. The plaintiff sought $50 million in damages and had previously filed multiple unsuccessful habeas petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 challenging the same conviction and sentence. After screening under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, the magistrate judge recommended dismissal, which the district court adopted following de novo review. The court dismissed the claims with prejudice as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, finding they repeated allegations already rejected in prior proceedings as an abuse of the writ and lacked any arguable basis in law or fact.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

In United States v. Dominguez, the defendant moved to introduce polygraph test results as substantive evidence of innocence in a criminal prosecution. Following a Daubert hearing, the court denied the motion, applying the flexible inquiry from United States v. Posado and Federal Rules of Evidence 702, 104(a), and 403. The court found the evidence insufficiently reliable, citing the expert's testimony on 70-90% accuracy rates, subjective examiner procedures, potential cultural biases, and drug effects. It further held that any probative value was substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice to the government, as the defendant had not permitted government observers and imposed one-sided conditions for further testing.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a motion by the Brownsville Herald to dissolve a court order that prohibited interviews with jurors in the criminal trial of Antonio Giraldi and Lourdes Reategui, who were convicted of laundering drug proceeds from the Juan Garcia Abrego syndicate. The court decided to maintain restrictions on direct juror interviews but established a specific procedure requiring court notification to jurors, their consent via response cards, and provision of consenting jurors' names to the press. The core reasoning centered on the need to protect jurors from potential harassment or intimidation by the violent drug organization, while acknowledging First Amendment press freedoms, with such protections extending beyond the trial's conclusion due to ongoing risks near the U.S.-Mexico border.

criminal lawfree speech

The case involved plaintiffs who sued in Texas state court in 1992 to recover royalties allegedly owed by defendants including Texaco, which defendants removed to federal court in 1993 on diversity grounds claiming fraudulent joinder of a party. After a magistrate judge denied plaintiffs' timely motion to remand, plaintiffs filed motions seeking to redesignate that order as a recommendation for de novo district court review and for reconsideration of the remand denial. The court first resolved the timeliness of plaintiffs' objections by applying Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6 to add mailing time and exclude weekends and holidays from the ten-day period. It then analyzed whether a remand motion is dispositive under Rule 72 and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), concluding it is nondispositive and subject to review only for clear error or legal error, consistent with the statute's enumerated list of dispositive motions and the weight of authority.

procedure

The case concerns multiple appeals arising from Greyhound Lines' Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing during a 1990 strike by its union-represented employees and related NLRB unfair labor practice allegations. The bankruptcy court modified the automatic stay to permit adjudication of Ohio unemployment compensation claims by striking workers but barred adjustment of Greyhound's experience rating or tax liability; it also classified the NLRB's post-petition backpay claims as general unsecured claims rather than administrative expenses. The district court addressed further issues including estimation of the NLRB's contingent claims under Bankruptcy Code § 502(c) instead of accepting the agency's unilateral calculation, while reviewing the interplay between bankruptcy stays, claim priorities under § 507, and state unemployment proceedings. Core reasoning focused on statutory limits on lifting the stay for governmental units, the unsecured status of post-petition contingent labor claims, and the bankruptcy court's authority to estimate disputed amounts without full NLRB adjudication.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatoryproceduretaxes

This case involves a dispute between Bur-Cold Express, a common carrier, and Parker Hannifin, a shipper, over charges for transportation services performed in 1988 and 1989 under an agreement setting a rate of $1.00 per mile, while the carrier's filed ICC tariff rate was $1.25 per mile. The carrier sued to recover the difference between the agreed rate and the tariff rate, and the shipper sought to amend its answer to add counterclaims alleging fraud and violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act based on alleged double-billing on eleven shipments, while also arguing that the tariff rate was unreasonable. The court granted the shipper leave to file the amended answer and counterclaims, finding the claims sufficiently pleaded under federal pleading standards and that justice required allowing the amendments. It further held that the Interstate Commerce Commission has primary jurisdiction to determine the reasonableness of the filed tariff rate, transferred that issue to the ICC, and stayed all other proceedings pending the ICC's determination.

business & regulatoryprocedurefederal power

The case involved claims by Hispanic individuals in Texas and the State of Texas against the U.S. Department of Commerce and Census Bureau, alleging that the 1990 census undercounted undocumented and minority populations in southern Texas, resulting in lost congressional representation and federal funding. Plaintiffs sought a court order requiring statistical adjustment to the census figures. The court considered defendants' motion to dismiss on grounds that the claims presented a non-justiciable political question, that the State lacked parens patriae standing, and that jurisdiction was lacking in suits seeking relief from the federal government. The court reasoned that the census is not entirely insulated from judicial review, that manageable standards exist under the Administrative Procedure Act to evaluate whether the Secretary's decision against adjustment was arbitrary or capricious, and that further analysis of standing and jurisdiction was warranted before dismissal.

electionscivil rightsfederal power

In Broadway v. San Antonio Shoe, Inc., the defendant removed a state-court lawsuit to federal district court, asserting federal question jurisdiction based on the plaintiff's claim under the federal RICO statute (18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq.), which alleged a pattern of racketeering involving unfair trade practices and use of the mails. The court conducted a sua sponte inquiry into its jurisdiction, noting that removal jurisdiction is derivative and that state courts therefore must have had jurisdiction for the federal court to acquire it. After reviewing RICO's statutory provisions, relevant case law, and legislative implications, the court determined that federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over civil RICO claims, as evidenced by references to federal crimes, exclusive federal criminal enforcement, and venue rules limited to federal courts. Because the state court lacked jurisdiction, the federal court could not proceed and dismissed the action.

criminal lawprocedurefederal power

The case involved cable and programming companies (including ESPN and HBO) suing a Texas hotel for intercepting and publicly exhibiting their satellite-delivered copyrighted television programming via a dish antenna after the hotel canceled its cable subscription. The court consolidated the preliminary injunction hearing with a trial on the merits, accepted the parties' stipulated facts, and found violations of the Federal Communications Act, Copyright Act of 1976, Lanham Act, and related state laws. It granted a permanent injunction barring the hotel from further unauthorized interception, reception, or retransmission of the signals and programming, and awarded the plaintiffs $40,000 in compensatory damages including attorneys' fees and costs. The core reasoning was that the hotel's actions constituted willful unauthorized use of protected works, depriving the rights holders and authorized distributors of revenues needed to cover programming acquisition and distribution costs.

business & regulatoryfederal power

This case involved television programming providers suing a motor hotel for willfully intercepting and publicly exhibiting satellite-delivered copyrighted content, including ESPN and HBO services, through an unauthorized satellite dish after the hotel canceled its cable subscription. The court granted plaintiffs a permanent injunction barring the hotel and related parties from further unauthorized interception, reception, or retransmission of the programming signals or copyrighted works. It also awarded $40,000 in compensatory damages covering attorneys' fees and costs. The ruling rested on findings that the hotel's actions violated the Federal Communications Act, Copyright Act, Lanham Act, and related state laws, as the hotel operated within the plaintiffs' franchised service area without obtaining required licenses or payments.

business & regulatory

The case involved children of migrant agricultural workers in the Harlingen Independent School District who sued state and local education officials, claiming that an enrollment cut-off date for the district's "Extended Day" tutoring program violated Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act by failing to address their special educational needs and also infringed on equal protection rights. The court granted a preliminary injunction requiring the district to allow eligible migrant students who enrolled after the October 17 cut-off to make up missed work and earn credit for the semester. The reasoning was that while the program itself could meet special needs, the cut-off date was implemented uniformly without considering its impact on migrant children or consulting the migrant education director, thus disregarding statutory requirements, though no equal protection violation was found since it applied to all students.

civil rightsimmigration

In Queen Noor, Inc. v. McGinn, a Texas corporation sued South Carolina residents and a South Carolina corporation in Texas state court for tortious interference and breach of a time charter party contract; the defendants removed the case to federal court in Texas and moved to transfer it to South Carolina under a forum-selection clause in the contract that designated the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina as the exclusive forum and applied South Carolina law. The court granted the motion to transfer after determining that the defendants had timely raised their venue objection in their answer and counterclaim without waiving it, that the clause was not invalidated by fraud or overreaching, and that enforcement was reasonable under the standard set by The Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co. The court noted that a parallel action arising from the same transaction was already pending in South Carolina and found no basis to disregard the parties' contractual choice of forum.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case was a federal § 1983 action brought by the estate of a minor student against a Texas school district and a teacher, alleging that negligent lack of supervision in a junior high woodshop class violated the student's rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments when he was seriously injured by an unguarded table saw. Prior to filing in federal court, the plaintiff had pursued a similar negligence claim in state court, where summary judgment was granted to the defendants on state immunity grounds and the subsequent appeal was dismissed for failure to file a timely bond. The court addressed multiple issues on the defendants' motions for summary judgment, including whether a negligent act could support a § 1983 claim under Parratt v. Taylor, whether the action was timely, whether the state judgment had res judicata effect, and whether the teacher and district were entitled to immunity from suit.

civil rightsproceduretorts & liability

The case involved Jose Angel Longoria, a below-the-knee amputee who had previously worked as a school bus driver, seeking reemployment in that role with the Harlingen Consolidated Independent School District (HCISD), a recipient of federal funds; he was denied the position under Texas Education Agency rules barring individuals with missing extremities. The court determined that Longoria qualified as an otherwise qualified handicapped individual under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and that HCISD violated the statute by excluding him from employment solely because of his handicap. Evidence showed he held a valid chauffeur's license with appropriate restrictions, had no driving complaints during prior employment, and possessed full mobility per uncontroverted medical testimony, with no other basis for the denial. The court granted injunctive relief requiring his hire upon the next vacancy after a routine physical exam, along with attorneys' fees, while finding damages unavailable under the Act and declining to reach constitutional claims.

civil rightslabor & employment

This case concerned the relative priorities among federal tax liens, state tax liens, and judgment liens attached to property that was the subject of a mortgage foreclosure sale after the borrowers defaulted. The court first awarded McAllen State Bank the first $10,000 of proceeds plus half of the remainder based on its subrogated purchase-money lien, then applied federal law to rank the remaining liens on the other half of the proceeds. Under the federal "first in time, first in right" rule, a state lien must be choate under federal standards before a federal tax lien is filed to take priority; the court therefore ranked the liens according to their filing dates, placing the January 1974 judgment lien of Simon Diaz first, followed by the January 1975 federal tax lien, the March 1975 Texas Employment Commission judgment lien, and the April 1975 federal tax lien. The court ordered foreclosure and distribution of sale proceeds in that sequence, with any included interest, fees, or costs sharing the priority of the underlying lien.

taxespropertyfederal power

This case was a class action lawsuit filed by Salvadoran and Guatemalan detainees at an INS facility in Texas against the Immigration and Naturalization Service, challenging detention practices that limited access to attorneys, legal materials, and information about rights. The court had previously issued a preliminary injunction addressing access to counsel and courts, and after further briefing it extended that injunction to require INS officials to notify eligible detainees of their right to apply for political asylum before any deportation or voluntary departure. The decision rested on findings that the plaintiffs satisfied the four-part test for preliminary injunctive relief, including a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, and on established constitutional requirements for reasonable access to legal assistance and courts under precedents such as Bounds v. Smith. The court noted that many detainees were unfamiliar with U.S. immigration procedures and the Refugee Act of 1980, and that existing practices created barriers to exercising asylum rights.

immigrationcivil rights

The case involved the Communications Workers of America union seeking court confirmation and enforcement of an arbitration award against Southwestern Bell Telephone Company that reaffirmed the terms of a Local Overtime Agreement incorporated from a prior NLRB settlement. The district court denied the application after finding that the Company had validly terminated the overtime agreement effective August 9, 1980. The core reasoning was that the arbitration award expressly incorporated the settlement agreement's termination clause, the Company had provided timely notice to the Union as required, and no additional steps such as notifying mediation services were mandated by the parties' agreement. The court declined to review the merits of the arbitration itself under established federal labor law principles.

labor & employment

This case involved a seven-year-old multi-handicapped child, Raul Espino, Jr., who cannot regulate his body temperature and requires a stable environment between 68 and 78 degrees Fahrenheit. His parents sued the Brownsville Independent School District and others under the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, the Rehabilitation Act, and related laws, claiming that providing him with an air-conditioned plexiglass cubicle in a non-air-conditioned classroom instead of a fully air-conditioned regular classroom violated his right to education in the least restrictive environment appropriate to his needs. After an evidentiary hearing, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, finding a likelihood of success on the merits of the EAHCA claim based on a preponderance of the evidence showing the placement failed to mainstream the child to the maximum extent appropriate. The decision rested on findings that the cubicle isolated him from peers and that the individualized education plan recommended an air-conditioned classroom to meet both his medical and social needs.

civil rightsfederal power

The case involved a plaintiff from Ohio suing defendants in federal court under diversity jurisdiction for the alleged conversion of a used ship's engine and parts, claiming damages exceeding $100,000 in value plus exemplary damages. The defendants moved to dismiss, asserting that the actual value was only $1,500 based on the purchase price, which fell below the $10,000 jurisdictional threshold. The court granted the motion after determining under Texas law that the market value of the equipment was at most $1,500, plus interest amounting to about $1,770, and that even including potential exemplary damages, the total would not reasonably exceed $10,000. The plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate a higher value or meet the jurisdictional amount, leading to dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

proceduretorts & liability