Connors v. Halupis ( 2021 )

Case: 20-20105 Document: 00515886482 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/03/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
June 3, 2021
No. 20-20105 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
Kevin Connors,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Edgar Halupis; Terry Speer,
Defendants—Appellants.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:17-CV-1512
Before Jolly, Elrod, and Graves, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Edgar Halupis and Terry Speer appeal the district court’s denial of
their motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds as to the
claim asserted by Kevin Connors, Texas prisoner # 1284939, that they were
deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth
Amendment.
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 20-20105 Document: 00515886482 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/03/2021
No. 20-20105
“[T]he denial of a motion for summary judgment based upon qualified
immunity is a collateral order capable of immediate review . . . to the extent
that the district court’s order turns on an issue of law.” Brown v. Strain, 663
F.3d 245, 248 (5th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks and citations
omitted). While we are without jurisdiction to review whether factual
disputes are genuine, we can determine “whether the factual disputes that
the district court identified are material to the application of qualified
immunity.” Amador v. Vasquez, 961 F.3d 721, 726 (5th Cir. 2020) (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted). Our review is de novo. Kovacic v.
Villarreal, 628 F.3d 209, 211 (5th Cir. 2010).
To rebut the assertion of qualified immunity on summary judgment,
Connors was required to establish that the “allegedly wrongful conduct
violated clearly established law and that genuine issues of material fact exist
regarding the reasonableness of the official[s’] conduct.” Baldwin v. Dorsey,
964 F.3d 320, 325 (5th Cir. 2020), cert. denied, 141 S. Ct. 1379 (2021); see also
Perniciaro v. Lea, 901 F.3d 241, 255 (5th Cir. 2018). The district court denied
summary judgment because a genuine issue of material fact remained. The
question for us on appeal is not whether the factual dispute identified by the
district court is genuine, but whether it is material to the qualified immunity
inquiry. Amador, 961 F.3d at 726. We conclude that it is and DISMISS for
lack of jurisdiction. See id. at 726, 730-31. The motion for dismissal of the
cross-appeal is DENIED as moot.
2