## IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

No. 12-50332

In re: TIME WARNER CABL E , INCORPORATED; TEXAS CABLE ASSOCIATION,

Petitioners

Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas

Before REAVLEY, ELROD, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. * 

### PER CURIAM: **


### This lawsuit began nearly se v e n y ears ago. In January of this year, we 1 

### he l d u nder well-settled precedent that the provisions excluding only certain incumb e n t s from a statewide franchise violated the First Amendment. Time Warner Cable Inc. v. Hudson , 667 F.3d 630, 642 (5th Cir. 2012). Furthermore, U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

## F I L E D May18 , 20 12 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Tho mas M

. Reavley, Cir cuit Jud ge, conc urs in t he judgm ent only. *

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has det erm ined that thi s opinion should not * * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t for th in 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 .4.

The dis tri ct cour t init ially dis mi ss ed the com plai nt unde r Fede ral Rule of Civil 1 Proc edur e 12(b )( 6) for lack of st andi ng and rip enes s, but t his cour t rever se d and rem ande d. Tex

. Cabl e & Tel eco mm s. As s’n v. Hu dson , 265 F. App ’x 210, 219 (5t h Cir. 2008)

. The par tie s fil ed com pet ing mo tio ns for sum mar y judgm ent on rem and. Aft er the mo tio ns we re full y brie fed , how ever, the dis tri ct cour t too k no act ion for tw o years des pit e rep eate d requ es ts for act ion. The dis tri ct cour t ulti mat ely deni ed the plai ntif fs ’ mo tio n and grant ed the def enda nts ’

mo tio n fo r s u m m a r y j udgm ent, but this cour t again rever se d and rem ande d. Ti me War ner Cabl e Inc. v. H udson , 667 F.3d 630 , 642 (5t h Cir

. 2012)

. 

### Case: 12-50332 Document: 00511860694 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/18/2012

### No. 12-50332

we urged the district court to handl e t h e remand “expeditiously,” given the plaintiffs’ long wait to validate time-sensiti v e rights. Id. On remand, the plaintiffs moved f

o r an order enjoining the defendants from enforcing the unconstitutional exclusion. After more than thirty days with no response from the district court, the plaintiffs applied for a statewide franchise, but the Public Utility Commission (PUC) denied the franchise becau s e o f the district court’s failure to act. Finally, over one hundred days after our judgment, the district 2



### court denied the plaintiffs’ motion and entered a stay of the proceedings pending the resolution of the defendants’ petition for certior a r i b e f o r e t h e S u p r e me Court. We have serious concerns that the district court’s con t i n ued delay deviates from our mandate. See United States v. Lee , 358 F.3d 315, 321 (5th Cir. 2004) (“[A] lower court on remand must implement both the letter and the spirit of the appellate court’s mandate and may not disregard the explicit directives of that court.”). Moreover, “[i]t is well established that an inferior court has no power

3



### or authority to deviate from the mandate issued by an appellate court.” League of United Latin Am. Citizens, Dist. 19 v. City of Boerne , 659 F.3d 421, 438 (5th Cir. 2012) (quoting Briggs v. Penn. R.R. Co. , 334 U.S. 304, 306 (1948)). We are also mindful that Congress has only authorized the court of appeals or a Justice of the Supreme Court to stay the execution or enforc e m e n t o f t he court of

The def enda nts opp os ed the plai ntif fs ’ app lica tio n beca use the dis tri ct cour t had not 2 yet act ed on rem and. The PUC deni ed Time Warne r’s app lica tio n. Altho ugh it ack now led ged that this cour t held the exclusi ons uncon st itut ional, the agency wr ote that “th e Fift h Circuit and the dis tri ct cour t have yet to enjoin or othe rw ise alte r the ope rat ion” of the exclus ion, and it ther efo re “re mai ns unchan ged f o r n o w
. ” It is unfo rtu nate that the PUC has tak en the pos itio n t hat it wi ll not change an o per atio n d eem ed uncon st itut ional.

Ou r revie w of the def

enda nts ’ argum ents to the dis tri ct cour t indi cat e that they se ek 3 to reli tigat e iss ues that this cour t has alre ady dec ide d, suc h as wh ethe r the ame nded st atut e’s exclus ion of

only c ert ain incum bent s violat es t he Firs t Ame ndm ent. “A liti gant w ho . . . has obta ined judgm ent in this Court aft er a length y pr oce ss of liti gation , involving se veral layers of cour ts , sho uld not be requ ired t o go t hrough that enti re pr oce ss again to obta in execut ion of the judgm ent of this Court .” Ge n. Atom ic Co. v. Fel ter , 436 U. S. 493, 497 (197 6). He re, the

man dat e requ ires no add itio nal fac t find ing. The uncon st itut ional por tio ns of the st atut e may not be use d to exclud e o nly c ert ain incum bent s fr om a st atew ide f ranc his e.


### 2 Case: 12-50332 Document: 00511860694 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/18/2012

### No. 12-50332

appeals’ judgment pending a petition for certiorari. 28 U.S.C. § 2101(f); Byrne v. Roemer , 847 F.2d 1130, 1134 (5th Cir. 1 988). Nevertheles s , m a n d a m u s i s a n e x t r a o r dinary remedy available only when, inter alia , there is no other adequate means to attain relief. In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc. , 545 F.3d 304, 311 (5th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Therefore, we decline
to issue the writ of mandamus here w h e r e the district court’s denial of the requested injunction is immediatel y a p p e alable, and plaintiffs may file an expedited appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) and R u l e 2 o f the Federal Rules of Appella t e P r o c e d u re. In re Morton , 2012 WL 470177 (5th Cir. 2012) (unpublished). Any further appeal or interim motions will be heard b y this panel. See League of United Latin Am. Citizens , 847 F.3d at 440; Tex. Med. Providers Performing Abortion Servs. v. Lakey , 667 F.3d 570, 572 (5th Cir. 201 2). It is ORDERED that the petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED.

3 Case: 12-50332 Document: 00511860694 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/18/2012