green
Positive treatment
31.1 score
Treatment trajectory · 2014 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2014
2020
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 17 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Jackie Lene McKinney Poston v. Ryan Wood, Ronald White, James Neill, and Rogan Jackson
Corp., 515 F. App’x 269, 272 (5th Cir. 2013) (internal citation omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ebony Billups v. U.S. Department of the Navy and John and Jane Does 1-10
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Corp., 515 F. App’x 269, 272-73 (5th Cir. 2013) (citing Sanchez v. Standard Brands, Inc., 431 F.2d 455, 462 (5th Cir. 1970); Manning v. Chevron Chem.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Texas Department of Public Safety v. Robert Christopher Callaway
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Corp., 515 F. App’x 269, 273 (5th Cir. 2013) (citing Morgan, 536 U.S. at 114 ); Wernert v. City of Dublin, 557 S.W.3d 868, 875 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2018, no pet.) (“For the reasons expressed in Simmons-Myers, we agree with the City’s position that Wernert’s claims are precluded because he did not file an [amended or new] administrative charge for these discrete acts that occurred after his previous EEOC charge.”). 24 B.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Vann v. The City of Meridian Mississippi
(2×)
But Simmons-Myers relates to “claims in which both retaliation and discrimination are alleged.” 515 F. App’x at 273 (emphasis added).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Buckner v. West Tallahatchie School District
Corp., 515 F. App’x 269, 272 (5th Cir. 2013) (internal citation omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Freeman v. Delta Health Center, Inc.
Corp., 515 F. App’x 269, 272 (5th Cir. 2013) (internal citation omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Fleming v. Methodist Hospital
To the extent that Fleming’s retaliation claim is premised on the corrective actions she received, the Fifth Circuit has counseled that written reprimands or warnings generally are not adverse employment actions under the standard for retaliation claims.11 See Simmons-Myers v. Caesars Entm’t Corp., 515 F. App’x 269, 275 (5th Cir. 2013) (written warnings for performance issues did not constitute adverse employment action for retaliation claim); DeHart v. Baker Hughes Oilfield Ops., Inc., 214 F. App’x 437, 442 (5th Cir. 2007) (a written warning for insubordination, being argumentative, a…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Winn v. Cleburne Independent School District
Lone Star Fund V (U.S.), 594 F.3d at 387 . 8 369 (5th Cir. 2017); Simmons-Myers v. Caesars Entertainment Corp., 515 F. App’x 269, 273 (5th Cir. 2013).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Christopher Wernert v. City of Dublin
(6×)
In Simmons- 8 Myers, the plaintiff filed an EEOC charge alleging she was the victim of gender discrimination. 515 F. App’x at 271.
discussed
Cited "see"
Carzell Middleton v. Honorable Daniel Driscoll, Acting Secretary of the Army, Department of the Army
See Simmons-Myers v. Caesars Entm’t Corp., 515 F. App’x 269, 275 (5th Cir. 2013); Hernandez v. Sikorsky Support Servs., Inc., 495 F. App’x 435, 438 (5th Cir. 2012); DeHart v. Baker Hughes Oilfield Ops., Inc., 214 F. App’x 437, 442 (5th Cir. 2007).
cited
Cited "see"
Smith v. General Motors
See Simmons-Myers v. Caesars Entm’t Corp., 515 F. App’x 269, 272-73 (5th Cir. 2013) (per curiam).
cited
Cited "see"
Kittilsen v. General Supply & Services Inc
See Simmons-Myers, 515 F. App’x at 273.
discussed
Cited "see"
Lafargue v. Comprehensive Health Management, Inc.
See Simmons-Myers v. Caesars Entm’t Corp., 515 F. App’x 269 , 273 (5th Cir. 2013)(citing Gupta, 654 F.2d at 414 ) (“[T]his court has not applied the Gupta exception to claims in which both retaliation and discrimination are alleged.”).
discussed
Cited "see"
Roberts v. Acosta
See Simmons-Myers v. Caesars Entm’t Corp., 515 F. App’x 269 , 273 n. 1 (5th Cir. 2013) (collecting cases). 17 See Tyes-Williams, 361 F. Supp. 3d at 11 ; see also Mount v. Johnson, 36 F. Supp. 3d 74 , 85–86 (D.D.C. 2014) (collecting cases).
cited
Cited "see"
Kristin Phillips v. Caris Life Sciences, Inc., et
See Simmons-Myers, 515 F. App’x at 273; Fine, 995 F.2d at 577–78.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Mount v. Napolitano
Compare Martinez v. Potter, 347 F.3d 1208, 1210 (10th Cir.2003) (complainant must file a new administrative complaint for all acts of retaliation that arise subsequent to the filing of the initial administrative complaint) with Wedow v. City of Kansas City, 442 F.3d 661, 673-74 (8th Cir.2006) (no need to exhaust separately acts of retaliation subsequent to the initial administrative complaint if they would be discovered during a reasonable investigation into the initial allegation) and Sydnor v. Fairfax Cnty., 681 F.3d 591, 594 (4th Cir.2012) (no need for separate exhaustion when “both the E…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Joel GARCIA-GONZALEZ, Petitioner-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES of America; Bureau of Prisons; Warden, RCDC III; Geo Group; Department of Homeland Security, Respondents-Appellees
v.
UNITED STATES of America; Bureau of Prisons; Warden, RCDC III; Geo Group; Department of Homeland Security, Respondents-Appellees
12-51053.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Feb 26, 2013.
515 F. App'x 269
Joel Garcia-Gonzalez, Pecos, TX, pro se., Gary Layton Anderson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Respondents-Appellees.
King, Clement, Higginson.
Unpublished
PER CURIAM:
*
Joel Garcia-Gonzalez, federal prisoner # 89326-079, an alien against whom the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement has issued a detainer subjecting him to immediate removal from the United States upon release from Bureau of Prisons (BOP) custody, moves this court to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) to appeal the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition challenging the BOP’s exclusion of him from rehabilitation programs and halfway houses. His arguments are foreclosed by this court’s decision in Gallegos-Heman-dez v. United States, 688 F.3d 190, 192-93 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 133 S.Ct. 561, 184 L.Ed.2d 365 (2012).
Accordingly, Garcia-Gonzalez’s motion to proceed IFP is DENIED, and his appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
*
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 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 CIR. R. 47.5.4.