Reported / Citable
Background
Luis Enrique Padilla, the former chief of the Sunset Police Department in Louisiana, encountered R.A. while investigating a hit-and-run. R.A. did not match the suspect’s description, was not resisting, and posed no threat. While R.A. was handcuffed, Padilla forcefully twisted and sprained his thumb and wrist. Padilla acknowledged that he willfully used unreasonable force.
Padilla pleaded guilty to misdemeanor deprivation of rights under color of law, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 242, and received five years of probation. After hearing testimony from a psychologist who diagnosed R.A. with PTSD caused by Padilla’s conduct, the district court concluded that the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act applied and ordered Padilla to pay $3,500 for therapy. It denied the government’s separate request for R.A.’s relocation expenses.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Circuit affirmed. Because Padilla had not objected below to application of the MVRA, the court reviewed that issue for plain error. Circuit precedent states that a misdemeanor § 242 offense is not a crime of violence, but the panel concluded that, even assuming the district court committed an error satisfying the first three requirements of plain-error review, Padilla failed to show that leaving the restitution order intact would seriously affect the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.
The court emphasized that Padilla conceded the district court could have imposed discretionary restitution under 18 U.S.C. § 3663. It also rejected his challenges to restitution for future psychological care and to the sufficiency of the evidence. Fifth Circuit precedent permits restitution for future psychological treatment, and the district court did not clearly err in crediting the psychologist’s testimony that Padilla’s conduct caused R.A.’s PTSD and that R.A. needed and wanted treatment.
Key Takeaways
- A misdemeanor conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 242 is not a crime of violence under Fifth Circuit precedent, but an unpreserved MVRA error does not automatically warrant reversal.
- The fourth prong of plain-error review is case-specific, and the availability of discretionary restitution for the same loss supported leaving the award intact.
- Restitution may cover future psychological care when credible evidence establishes causation, the victim’s need for treatment, and a supported treatment cost.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the practical importance of preserving objections to the statutory basis for restitution. Even when a district court appears to invoke the wrong restitution statute, the Fifth Circuit may affirm if the defendant cannot satisfy the demanding fourth prong of plain-error review and the same relief could lawfully have been imposed on a discretionary basis.
It also confirms that future mental-health treatment can qualify as restitution and that appellate courts will ordinarily defer to a district court’s supported credibility findings concerning psychological injury and treatment needs.