The following opinions designated for publication were released by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on June 8, 2009:

• Stoot v. Cain (Jolly, Smith, Benavides, JJ.; per curiam opinion) (appeal from W.D. La.) (habeas appeal - prisoner mailbox rule). Reversing the district court’s dismissal of the petitioner’s habeas petition as time-barred on the basis that he had not properly filed an application for writs to the state supreme court in his pursuit of state postconviction relief, and remanding for further proceedings. The Fifth Circuit held that “in Louisiana courts, a pro se prisoner’s pleading is deemed filed on the date that the prisoner submits the pleading to prison authorities to be mailed, regardless of whether the pleading actually reaches the court. Under such a rule, it is of course incumbent upon the petitioner to diligently pursue his petition. A failure to inquire about a lost petition is strong evidence that the petition was, in fact, never sent.” Slip op. at 5-6.
• Morgan v. Quarterman (Jolly, Smith, Benavides, JJ.; opinion by Jolly, J.) (appeal from S.D. Tex.) (habeas appeal - prison disciplinary proceeding). Affirming district court’s denial of habeas relief sought by prisoner who raised claims that his First Amendment free speech and Fourteenth Amendment due process rights were violated by disciplinary proceedings resulting in the loss of good time credits due to vulgar and indecent language he used in a note to opposing counsel in connection with pending litigation. The petitioner’s prison disciplinary proceedings arose from a note that he sent to an assistant state attorney general on a piece of toilet paper on which he had written, “Dear Susan, Please use this to wipe your ass, that argument was a bunch of shit! You[rs] Truly, George Morgan.” The Fifth Circuit held that “[t]he TDCJ has a legitimate penological interest in rehabilitating prisoners in preparation for their return to society, and disciplinary proceedings can further that interest”; that the petitioner’s note would be “offensive in mainstream society” and intolerable between members of the bar or in a free-setting pro se litigation; and that the disciplinary proceedings therefore did not violate the petitioner’s First Amendment freedom of speech. The Court then held that there was no violation of the petitioner’s due process rights in the conduct of the disciplinary proceedings, where he received written notice of the proceedings, was offered assistance of counsel (though not required), and was given the opportunity to question the charging officer.
• Randall v. Astrue (Jolly, Smith, Benavides, JJ.; per curiam opinion) (appeal from W.D. La.) (supplemental social security income benefits). Affirming judgment denying application for supplemental social security income benefits. The Fifth Circuit held that the administrative law judge applied the proper legal standard in determining that Listing 12.05 requires an independent showing of deficits in adaptive functioning with evidence supporting onset before the age of 22; and that substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s finding that the applicant failed to meet this legal standard.

Additionally, the Court released 8 unpublished opinions on June 8, 2009.