Linda Frew v. Chris Traylor ( 2016 )

  •      Case: 15-40229   Document: 00513745166     Page: 1   Date Filed: 11/03/2016
                     FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT   United States Court of Appeals
                                                      Fifth Circuit
                                                                    November 3, 2016
                                     No. 15-40229
                                                                      Lyle W. Cayce
    CARLA FREW; CHARLOTTE GARVIN, as next friend of her minor children
    Johnny Martinez, Brooklyn Garvin and BreAnna Garvin; CLASS
    MEMBERS; NICOLE CARROLL, Class Representative; MARIA AYALA, as
    next friend of her minor children, Christopher Arizola, Leonard Jimenez, and
    Joseph Veliz; MARY JANE GARZA, as next friend of her minor children,
    Hilary Garza and Sarah Renea Garza,
                 Plaintiffs - Appellants
                 Defendants - Appellees
                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Eastern District of Texas
    Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
          The Parties’ Petitions for Panel Rehearing are DENIED and no member
    of this panel nor judge in regular active service on the court having requested
    that the court be polled on Rehearing En Banc, (FED R. APP. P. and 5TH CIR.
    R. 35), Appellees’ Petition for Rehearing En Banc is also DENIED.
          On remand, the district court may consider the vacated portions of its
    order under either prong 1 of Rule 60(b)(5) (the judgment has been satisfied,
         Case: 15-40229       Document: 00513745166          Page: 2     Date Filed: 11/03/2016
                                           No. 15-40229
    released, or discharged), prong 3 of Rule 60(b)(5) (applying it prospectively is
    no longer equitable), or both. 1 We were unable to determine whether the able
    district court’s decision under prong 1 or prong 3 of Rule 60(b)(5) would have
    been the same with the “shortage” metric that this Court found controlled.
    Given the considerable flexibility accorded state implementation of its policies
    with attendant protected deference, the Supreme Court in Horne left to courts
    under Rule 60(b)(5), and district courts in the first instance, to make that call.
    The deference in turn due to the presiding district court judge reflects its
    greater appreciation of the consent decree in operation and, nuances aside, its
    ability to decide if the decree has lived its life—leaving attending, ongoing
    societal ills to the political processes of today.
           As for Appellees’ argument as it relates to prong 1 that they do not have
    the information to analyze the second part of the panel opinion’s “shortage”
    metric (average client load of the relevant class of provider), we disagree. Like
    the parties in Frew v. Gilbert 2 and Frew v. Hawkins, 3 the parties here may use
    witnesses, and/or develop other methods for retrieving the necessary
    information, should the district court find the inquiry necessary.
           The other arguments raised by the parties in their petitions for panel
    rehearing are unpersuasive.
           1  See Horne v. Flores, 
    557 U.S. 433
    , 454 (2009) (“Use of the disjunctive ‘or’ [in Rule
    60(b)(5)] makes it clear that each of the provision’s three grounds for relief is independently
    sufficient and therefore that relief may be warranted even if petitioners have not ‘satisfied’
    the original order.”).
    109 F. Supp. 2d 579
    , 604 (E.D. Tex. 2000), vacated sub nom. Frazar v. Gilbert, 
    300 F.3d 530
     (5th Cir. 2002), rev’d sub nom. Frew ex rel. Frew v. Hawkins, 
    540 U.S. 431
    401 F. Supp. 2d 619
    , 656–57 (E.D. Tex. 2005), aff'd sub nom. Frazar v. Ladd, 
    457 F.3d 432
     (5th Cir. 2006).