Summary
The Fifth Circuit remanded Prince McCoy’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims alleging an Eighth Amendment violation to the district court after the Supreme Court vacated and remanded the case for further consideration in light of Taylor v. Riojas. The per curiam opinion expressed no view on the proceedings or decisions required on remand and directed that the mandate issue forthwith.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- What action should the Fifth Circuit take after the Supreme Court vacated its prior judgment and remanded for further consideration in light of Taylor v. Riojas?
Holdings
- The matter must be remanded in its entirety to the district court in accordance with the Supreme Court's judgment.
Key quotations
“This matter is REMANDED in its entirety to the district court in accordance with the judgment of the Supreme Court.” (2)
“We express no view as to what proceedings the court should conduct on remand or what decisions it should make.” (2)
Factual background
McCoy asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that Mr. Alamu violated the Eighth Amendment. The opinion does not recount the underlying factual allegations because it resolves only the procedural consequences of the Supreme Court's vacatur and remand.
Procedural history
McCoy brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging an Eighth Amendment violation. The Fifth Circuit previously affirmed the judgment against him in McCoy v. Alamu, 950 F.3d 226 (5th Cir. 2020), with Judge Costa dissenting in part. The Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated the judgment, and remanded for further consideration in light of Taylor v. Riojas. The Fifth Circuit then remanded the matter in its entirety to the district court.
Remand instructions
The matter is remanded in its entirety to the district court in accordance with the Supreme Court's judgment. The Fifth Circuit expressed no view on what proceedings the district court should conduct or what decisions it should make. The mandate shall issue forthwith.