Barton v. United States of America, No. A:13-CA-910-SS, slip op. (W.D. Tex. Jan. 10, 2014)(Sparks, J.)

Kurt Barton was the CEO and President of Triton Financial before the SEC shut it down. After his 39-count indictment on a host of fraud and money laundering charges, the District Court appointed two lawyers and a forensic accountant for Barton’s defense and granted a four-month continuance for them to prepare. Id. at 2. Barton was convicted, however, on all 39 counts and the Fifth Circuit affirmed. Id. at 3. Barton filed this proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, contending that (a) he received ineffective assistance of counsel, in part because of a supposed conflict he was undoubtedly aware of from the start, and (b) the Government committed a Brady violation by failing to provide complete records to his forensic accountant. Id. The District Court thoroughly debunked each point and underscored the overwhelming evidence of guilt unaffected by Barton’s complaints. Id. at 5-24.

Glanville v. Corrections Corp. of America, No. A-13-CV-519-SS, slip op. (W.D. Tex. Dec. 16, 2013)(Sparks, J.)

Glanville’s alleged that individual medical providers and correctional officers ignored symptoms of an aneurysm he suffered while in the Bartlett State Jail, leaving him brain damaged and unable to work.  Slip op. at 1-2.  The issue before District Court was whether Glanville had stated a viable section 1983 claim against Nicole Pitts, a prison nurse who briefly participated in his care.  Id. at 3 and 5-6.  To overcome Pitts’ qualified immunity, this required factual allegations regarding “conduct on the part of Pitts amounting to deliberate indifference to Glanville’s medical needs.”  Id. at 7.  The District Court determined that the scant references to Pitts in Glanville’s complaint did not approach that heightened pleading standard; therefore, the District Court dismissed the claims against Pitts.  Id. at 9.

Brantley v. Kuntz, No. A-13-CV-872-SS, slip op. (W.D. Tex. Dec. 16, 2013)(Sparks, J.)

Brantley holds a certificate that permits her to braid hair for compensation, but she does not hold an instructor license nor a Class A barber license; thus, while she has taught braiding, her students have been unable to use her classes to satisfy Texas’ hair-braiding licensing requirements.  Slip op. at 4.  Brantley filed suit to challenge the constitutionality of the Texas’ barber instructor licensing scheme, contending that it violates (a) the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment, (b) the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment, and (c) the privileges or immunities clause of the fourteenth amendment.  Id. at 1-2.  The Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation defendants filed a Rule 12(b)(6) motion as to Brantley’s equal protection and privileges or immunities claims.  Id. at 2.  She conceded that the latter claim was foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s holding in the Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1872).  Slip op. at 6.  And the District Court concluded that Brantley failed to state a viable equal protection claim.  Id. at 6-9.  Therefore, the District Court dismissed all but the unchallenged due process claim.  Id. at 9.