Hernandez v. Lumpkin ( 2021 )

Case: 20-10013 Document: 00515905754 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/18/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
June 18, 2021
No. 20-10013
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Edgar Hernandez,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Bobby Lumpkin, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice,
Correctional Institutions Division; Garth Parker, Warden;
John Lopez, Assistant Warden; Ricky Villanueva, Captain,
Disciplinary Hearing Officer,
Defendants—Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:19-CV-239
Before Jones, Southwick, and Costa, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Edgar Hernandez, Texas prisoner # 02109665, proceeding pro se and
in forma pauperis, filed the present lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the
Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, alleging that prison
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 20-10013 Document: 00515905754 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/18/2021
No. 20-10013
officials and employees of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ)
had interfered with his Native American religious practice by subjecting him
to multiple disciplinary actions for refusing to cut his hair in accordance with
TDCJ grooming policies, even though his religious beliefs forbid him from
cutting his hair. He also asserts, however, that he has not actually been forced
to cut his hair. Hernandez sought a variety of relief, including preliminary
injunctive relief “to freely continue [his religious] practice without any
further punishment.”
The district court denied Hernandez’s request for a preliminary
injunction without holding a Spears hearing or requesting a response from the
TDCJ defendants. The court determined that Hernandez was not entitled
to injunctive relief because he had failed to meet his burden of proof with
respect to each of the four required elements. See Byrum v. Landreth,
566 F.3d 442, 445 (5th Cir. 2009). Hernandez filed a timely notice of appeal
from the district court’s interlocutory order denying his request for a
preliminary injunction.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), this court has jurisdiction to review the
district court’s denial of Hernandez’s motion for a preliminary injunction,
which is immediately appealable. See Byrum, 566 F.3d at 444. The denial of
a preliminary injunction is reviewed for an abuse of discretion and will be
reversed “only under extraordinary circumstances.” White v. Carlucci,
862 F.2d 1209, 1211 (5th Cir. 1989). The district court’s factual
determinations are analyzed for clear error, and its legal conclusions are
considered de novo. Byrum, 566 F.3d at 444.
A district court must make “sufficient findings of fact to support each
element of the [preliminary injunction] analysis and apply[] the correct legal
standard to those facts.” Daniels Health Scis., L.L.C. v. Vascular Health Scis.,
L.L.C., 710 F.3d 579, 586 (5th Cir. 2013). Here, the court’s entire discussion
2
Case: 20-10013 Document: 00515905754 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/18/2021
No. 20-10013
of the first element consisted of a single conclusory sentence: “[Hernandez]
has not shown a substantial likelihood of success on the merits.” The district
court did not, for example, analyze the RLUIPA claim under the burden-
shifting framework the case law sets forth. See, e.g., Ali v. Stephens, 822 F.3d
776, 782 (5th Cir. 2016). Although the grant or denial of a preliminary
injunction rests in the discretion of the district court, the court “does not
exercise unbridled discretion.” Canal Auth. of Fla. v. Callaway, 489 F.2d
567, 572 (5th Cir. 1974); see also Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S.
7, 26 (2008) (finding abuse of discretion where district court addressed
preliminary injunction considerations “in only a cursory fashion”).
The district court addressed the remaining preliminary injunction
elements in the same conclusory fashion. Where a district court fails to make
sufficient findings of fact to support each element of the preliminary
injunction analysis, “the proper solution is to remand so that such findings
and conclusions may be entered, to give [this court] a basis for review. White,
862 F.2d at 1210 n.1.
For the foregoing reasons, we VACATE the district court’s order
denying Hernandez’s motion for a preliminary injunction and REMAND
for further development of the record, followed by reconsideration whether
Hernandez has established the required elements for a preliminary
injunction.
3