The following opinions designated for publication were released by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on June 25 and 26, 2009:

• Propes v. Quarterman (King, Stewart, Southwick, JJ.; opinion by Southwick, J.) (appeal from E.D. Tex.) (habeas appeal - successive petitions). Affirming the district court’s dismissal of the petitioner’s habeas petition on the grounds that it was a successive petition. The Fifth Circuit held that the law-of-the-case doctrine was not triggered to prevent review of the petitioner’s claims by an earlier motions panel’s decision to not grant a COA to the petitioner; and that the petitioner was required to join his claims challenging his underlying conviction with his claims regarding prison discipline into one petition, thus rendering the separate petitions “successive” under AEDPA. Regarding the petitioner’s complaint that the prison form he was supplied led him to believe that separate petitions were required, the Court observed that it “ha[s] sympathy for Propes’s protests about the guidance the form gave him. Yet we cannot ignore the principle that pro se litigants must conform to the same rules that are no doubt more easily understood by lawyers. Controlling and clear precedent on joining disciplinary and conviction challenges had been issued in 2003. Crone, 324 F.3d at 836. We would have little sympathy for an attorney who stated he needed the Crone principle pointed out on the form. Similarly, a pro se inmate must also be aware of the entire array of procedural requirements, not all of which may be mentioned on the form. We also conclude that sympathy cannot breach the solid procedural barriers set out in the AEDPA.” Slip op. at 11.
• Dutka v. AIG Life Insurance Co. (Higginbotham, Garza, Prado, JJ.; opinion by Higginbotham, J.) (appeal from S.D. Tex.) (ERISA - accidental death insurance benefits). Affirming district court’s summary judgment in favor of insurer on claims arising from denial of accidental death insurance benefits. The Fifth Circuit held that the plan administrator did not abuse its discretion in denying benefits on the basis that the decedent’s crash was caused because he was under the influence of drugs or other intoxicants, where there was more than a mere scintilla of evidence to support the finding.

Additionally, the Court released 36 unpublished opinions on June 25 and 26, 2009.