Transgender Prisoner Mistreatment Case (2016) In
Zollicoffer v. Livingston, a transgender prisoner brought a § 1983 action against the Executive Director of the
Texas Department of Criminal Justice, alleging Eighth Amendment violations for failing to protect her from sexual assault by other inmates. Bennett acknowledged the “horrific series of assaults, rapes, and abuses” were enough to “offend even the sternest of dispositions,” deferred ruling on whether the director was protected by qualified immunity, and ordered discovery on the issue. The case later settled.
International Kidnapping Case of a Minor (2018) In
USA v. Guimaraes, Bennett presided over a 10-day jury trial in which a Brazilian couple was convicted of the international kidnapping of their grandson. Bennett ordered a sentence below the guidelines while acknowledging “[t]here is no sentence I can impose that will resolve this family fracture.”
Public Corruption Case (2019) In
USA v. Delgado, Bennett sentenced Rodolfo Delgado, a Texas state district judge, to 60 months in prison for conspiracy, bribery, and obstructing justice. At sentencing, Bennett stated that “such criminal actions will not be tolerated, least of all from individuals conferred with the public trust.”
Houston Busking Case (2022) In
Barilla v. City of Houston, Bennett resolved a dispute between a street performer and the City of Houston by determining the city’s busking and permit ordinances were unconstitutional. The
Houston City Council unanimously rescinded the ordinances the following year.
Fourth Amendment Use-of-Force Case (2022-2025) In
Barnes v. Felix, Bennett presided over a Fourth Amendment suit brought on behalf of Ashtian Barnes, who was shot and killed by law enforcement during a traffic stop. In granting summary judgment to law enforcement, Bennett explained he was “duty bound” by the Fifth Circuit’s “moment of threat” doctrine to focus his analysis on only the two seconds before Barnes was shot. He added, however, that a “more robust examination” would have helped him assess the reasonableness of the shooting. The case
went up to the Supreme Court. There, a unanimous Court vacated judgment, remanded to the Fifth Circuit, and recognized that a district court “cannot review the totality of the circumstances if it has to put on chronological blinders.” == Professional affiliations ==