Filed: Jan. 21, 2020
Latest Update: Jan. 21, 2020
Summary: Case: 18-60274 Document: 00515278853 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/21/2020 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 18-60274 FILED January 21, 2020 Lyle W. Cayce STEPHEN DANIEL MONTALTO, Clerk Petitioner - Appellee v. MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; PELICIA HALL, COMMISSIONER, MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondents - Appellants Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi Befo
Summary: Case: 18-60274 Document: 00515278853 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/21/2020 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 18-60274 FILED January 21, 2020 Lyle W. Cayce STEPHEN DANIEL MONTALTO, Clerk Petitioner - Appellee v. MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; PELICIA HALL, COMMISSIONER, MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondents - Appellants Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi Befor..
More
Case: 18-60274 Document: 00515278853 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/21/2020
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 18-60274 FILED
January 21, 2020
Lyle W. Cayce
STEPHEN DANIEL MONTALTO, Clerk
Petitioner - Appellee
v.
MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; PELICIA HALL,
COMMISSIONER, MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Respondents - Appellants
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
Before DAVIS, HIGGINSON, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges.
STEPHEN A. HIGGINSON, Circuit Judge:
This panel previously remanded this case to the district court with
instructions that “it provide a supplemental order setting forth actual findings,
if any,” as to professional misconduct by the attorneys in this case. Montalto
v. Miss. Dep’t of Corr.,
938 F.3d 649, 658 (5th Cir. 2019). On December 9, 2019,
the district court granted the parties’ joint motion to approve their proposed
“Agreed Order.” In the “Agreed Order,” the district court clarifies that its
“previous order contained no formal findings of professional misconduct and
imposed no sanctions on the attorneys or parties involved in this case.”
Case: 18-60274 Document: 00515278853 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/21/2020
No. 18-60274
Because the district court made no “actual finding[s] of professional
misconduct,” United States v. El-Mezain,
664 F.3d 467, 579 (5th Cir. 2011), the
appeal is DISMISSED.
2