Gordon v. City of Pleasanton ( 2002 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_______________________________
No. 01-50486
_______________________________
ADRIAN KEITH GORDON, Individually and as next friend of KEITH
CHANCE GORDON, a minor,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
RUDY ORTIZ, SHAWNENE SCHAWVER, DAVID DOUGLAS, RONALD SANCHEZ, JOE
PAEZ, ELISEO PEREZ, DARREN WESTFALL, and JOHN ERIC RUTHERFORD, in
their individual capacities.
Defendants-Appellants.
_________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas, San Antonio Division
(00-CA-0049-EP)
_________________________________________________
July 1, 2002
Before WIENER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges, and DUPLANTIER,* District
Judge.
PER CURIAM**:
Defendants-Appellants, several law enforcement officers
involved in the allegedly unconstitutional restraint, search, and
*
The Honorable Adrian G. Duplantier, United States District
Court Judge for the Eastern District of Louisiana, sitting by
designation.
**
Pursuant to 5TH Cir. R. 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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 Cir. R. 47.5.4.
arrest of Plaintiffs-Appellees Adrian and Keith Gordon, father and
son, appeal the district court’s order denying their motions for
summary judgment based on qualified immunity. Agreeing with the
district court’s ruling in regard to all the appellants other than
Shawvene Schawver, we reverse as to her and affirm as to all the
rest.
I. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
This case involves 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985-86 claims, as
well as several state law tort claims, grounded in the defendants’
allegedly unconstitutional stop, restraint, search, seizure,
arrest, and malicious prosecution of the plaintiffs —— a father and
his teen-aged son —— triggered by the broadcast of a call by
Schawver, a police radio-dispatcher, in response to a cautionary
report that she received from a Texas state trooper. Four days
prior to the dispatcher’s call and the ensuing incident involving
the Gordons, a black male named James Engleton had killed three
police officers in a gun battle in Atacosta County, Texas, in which
Engleton too was killed. Apparently, a brother of Engleton had
attempted to get to the crime scene that day but was forced to
leave the area by law enforcement personnel after he created a
disturbance.1 The funeral for two of the slain officers took place
four days later in Atacosta County.
1
The record indicates that Engleton’s brother(s) (the record
is also unclear whether Engleton had one brother or more) may have
had a known prior criminal history.
2
On the day of the funerals, plaintiffs —— Adrian and Kieth
Gordon (father and minor son, respectively) —— both of whom are
black males, were traveling from their home in San Antonio to a
fishing and hunting destination in Port Mansfield, a distance of
more than 200 miles. On the morning in question, the Gordons
happened to stop for breakfast at the Taco Palacios restaurant in
Pleasanton, a town in Atacosta County near the site where the
funerals for two slain officers were taking place.
About mid-morning, defendant-appellant Schawver received a
call from a Texas state trooper, relaying information that he had
just received from an unidentified woman who purportedly had been
at the Taco Palacios:
Trooper: Atacosta, I had a subject [the unidentified
woman] come up to me just a little bit ago here at the
Exxon station across from the funeral home. She advised
that —— that Engleton subject’s brother was over there;
stating he was bragging about what had happened and
saying that the guy was talking about himself, saying he
was on some kind of mind buzz or something over there.
I don’t know if you might want to have somebody keep an
eye on him or something.
In turn, Schawver broadcast information over the dispatch radio:
Dispatcher [Schawver]: Okay. Attention all units: All
officers, all units in the area of Pleasanton, I need you
to be on the lookout for Engleton subject —— well, the
brother —— has [sic] been advised that he is probably in
the Pleasanton area at this time with another African-
American man. Possible description is a small gray
Toyota station wagon. This is unconfirmed. But that a
citizen is claiming that they were over at Taco Palacio
in Pleasanton. All units, all officers, if you would, be
alert and use extreme caution at this point in time.
Time now 11:02.
Two of the defendants, county deputies Rudy Ortiz and David
3
Douglas, immediately responded to the call and were the first
officers to reach the restaurant. When they arrived, they saw two
black males driving away from the parking lot in a blue Ford pickup
truck. Officer Ortiz activated his police lights, stepped out of
his vehicle, identified himself, and told the driver of the pickup
to stop the truck, step out, and walk toward the police car with
his hands on the truck. Cooperating willingly and doing as he was
told, the driver left his door open and approached the police car
precisely as directed. Officer Ortiz then moved towards the driver
and handcuffed him. Meanwhile, Officer Douglas walked to the right
side of the vehicle, handcuffed the passenger, and placed him face-
down on the hood of the pickup, the engine of which was still
running. At this point, between ten and fifteen law enforcement
personnel including the other defendants in this case (other than
Schawver) —— namely Deputies Ronald Sanchez, Joe Paez, and Eliseo
Perez, Lieutenant John Rutherford, as well as Darren Westfall, an
investigator for the Atascosta County District Attorney’s office ——
arrived at the parking lot.
Brandishing his shotgun, newly-arrived Deputy Sanchez
approached the handcuffed driver Adrian Gordon and frisked him for
weapons while Officer Ortiz, having obtained Gordon’s driver’s
license and identification, proceeded with a license check. The
driver’s identification and Officer Ortiz’s license check confirmed
that the driver was Adrian Gordon from San Antonio, Texas, and not
an Engleton. Meanwhile, Investigator Westfall had arrived on the
4
scene and proceeded to question the pickup truck’s teenage
passenger, Keith Gordon. The minor indicated that his
identification was in a bag inside the cab of the truck. Westfall
entered the vehicle and located the teenager’s identification,
which confirmed that he was Keith Gordon.2
After the Gordons’ identities were confirmed, the defendant
law enforcement personnel nevertheless continued to investigate,
while the Gordons remained handcuffed and restrained. The record
confirms that the Gordons cooperated with the officers and answered
their questions promptly, courteously, and truthfully.
As the questioning proceeded, defendant Joe Paez, a reserve
police officer from the Jourdanton Police Department, approached
Officer Ortiz holding an expandable baton (apparently one easily
identified as an “asp” or weapon-type baton) which he had taken
from the vehicle. Officer Paez claims that he saw the baton in
“plain view” as it lay at the bottom of a pouch on the inside panel
of the driver’s-side door, which had remained open ever since the
pickup was stopped.3
2
The Gordons contend that, despite having been told of the
exact location of the bag, Westfall nevertheless conducted an
unconsented search of the entire portion of the vehicle he entered.
3
As will be discussed further below, the Gordons, in their
deposition testimony, vigorously dispute that the baton was in
“plain view,” arguing that —— as Paez stated —— the baton was at
the bottom of the door pouch, but that it was covered by many other
articles which precluded it from being observed by anyone without
a search, i.e., it was not in plain view. In addition, Officer
Perez’s version of the sighting of the baton differed with Officer
Paez’s version: Officer Perez described the baton as partially
5
At about the same time that the baton was discovered and
seized,4 the officers initiated a full search of the Gordons’
truck. During this search, the officers found, inter alia, an
unloaded handgun inside a toolbox in the back seat of the truck.5
In the bed of the truck, the officers found an ice chest on which
the name “Cliff Tudyk” was written. Coincidentally, the last name
of one of the slain officers was Tudyk, although his first name was
not Cliff.
After the discovery of the baton and handgun, Officer Sanchez
asked the father, Adrian Gordon, if he had a permit to carry a
concealed weapon. Adrian Gordon replied that he had no such
permit, adding that he was not “carrying” a concealed weapon;
rather, the pistol was inside the tool box which was on the rear
seat, neither on his person nor easily accessible. Adrian Gordon
explained further that he was “traveling” and was therefore exempt
from the charge of carrying a concealed weapon without a permit, as
prohibited by Texas Penal Code § 46.02.6
protruding from the pouch, at an angle.
4
The record is vague and contains contradictory assertions
as to the exact sequence of events during the stop. It is unclear
whether the full search of the vehicle producing the handgun (see
infra n. 5 and accompanying text) occurred after, or
contemporaneously with, the discovery of the baton.
5
The magazine for the gun, containing live rounds, was found
in the tool box, next to the gun.
6
Texas Penal Code § 46.02 provides in relevant part:
(a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally,
knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his person
6
Officer Ortiz then asked Adrian Gordon the purpose of his
trip, to which he replied that he was on a hunting and fishing trip
with his son. He then showed Officer Ortiz his valid fishing and
hunting licenses.7 When asked where he got the ice chest with the
name “Cliff Tudyk” written on it, Adrian Gordon replied
(truthfully) that it belonged to one of his employees.
John Rutherford, the ranking officer on the scene, then
approved the reading of Miranda rights to Adrian Gordon. He was
then taken into police custody and transported to the Atacosta
County Jail on charges of carrying a concealed weapon without a
permit. The investigating officer at the jail interviewed Adrian
Gordon briefly and determined that the concealed weapon statute did
not apply to him because, inter alia, Adrian Gordon was a bona fide
traveler. The investigator’s deposition testimony reveals that he
immediately relayed this recommendation to Rutherford and the
a handgun, illegal knife, or club.
(b) It is a defense to prosecution under this section
that the actor was, at the time of the commission of the
offense
...
(3) traveling;
... (emphasis added).
7
Apparently, one of the Gordons answered that they were
going hunting while the other answered that they were going
fishing. The appellants argue that this equivocation, coupled with
the lack of sporting equipment in the truck, indicated suspicious
behavior on the part of the Gordons. The Gordons’ deposition
testimony indicates they embarked with the intention of going
fishing and, circumstances permitting, hunting as well, and that
their sporting equipment was stored at a hunting and fishing
location in Ports Mansfield.
7
county attorney. Even though the charges against the elder Gordon
were eventually dismissed, he spent some four to six hours in jail,
and missed out on the pleasure trip with his son. Keith, the
younger Gordon, was never charged with any crime, but was
nevertheless transported in handcuffs to the Pleasanton Police
Department where he was later released to his grandfather’s
custody.
The Gordons filed suit in district court asserting both state
and federal claims against the defendants. These claims were
grounded in the Gordons’ contention that they were stopped,
restrained, searched, and arrested without probable cause, solely
because they are African-American males. Specifically, against the
cities of Pleasanton and Jourdonton, the County of Atacosta,8
Officers Ortiz, Douglas, Sanchez, Rutherford, Paez, Perez,
Dispatcher Schawver, and Investigator Westfall, the Gordons alleged
causes of action under § 1983 for (1) violation of their right to
be free from punishment for exercise of free speech, (2)
unreasonable arrest, search, and seizure, (3) arrest without
probable cause, (4) search and arrest without warrant, (5) use of
excessive force, (5) malicious prosecution, (6) equal protection
violations, and (6) libel, slander, and defamation. The Gordons
also asserted causes of action under §§ 1985 and 1986 for
8
The municipal defendants are not included in this appeal
because they are not eligible for qualified immunity. See Turner
v. Houma Mun. Fire and Police Service Bd., 229 F.3d 478, 483 (5th
Cir. 2000).
8
conspiracy to deprive them of equal protection under color of law
and negligence in the prevention of wrongful conduct under color of
law. Finally, the Gordons advanced supplementary state law claims
against the individual defendants for false arrest, false
imprisonment, assault and battery, libel, slander, intentional
infliction of emotional distress, and malicious prosecution.
Soon after receiving the complaint, and within the time period
specified by Western District of Texas Local Rule CV-12, Officer
Perez and Dispatcher Schawver filed —— and the district court
denied —— a joint Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the claims
against them based on their entitlement to qualified immunity.9
The other defendants did not, at that time, submit either Rule
12(b)(6) or summary judgment motions based on federal qualified
immunity. In fact, it was not until more than a year after the
original complaint was filed, and after all discovery was
9
Local Rule CV-12 states:
In any case filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, or
involving causes of action in which the defense of
qualified or Eleventh Amendment immunity may be asserted,
the party of parties asserting the defense shall file a
motion to dismiss or for summary judgment in their
initial pleading or within thirty calendar days of their
initial pleading, or, if asserted in response to
allegations made by amended complaint, within twenty days
of the date the amended complaint was filed. When a
party files a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment
based on qualified or Eleventh Amendment immunity, the
opposing party shall have eleven days from the date the
motion is served on the opposing party to file a response
to specify what, if any, discovery is necessary to
determine the issue(s) of qualified or Eleventh amendment
immunity and the time period necessary for the specific
discovery. (emphasis added).
9
completed, that the rest of the defendants (hereafer collectively,
the “waiver defendants”) filed motions for summary judgment based
on qualified immunity.
The district court ruled that because all the defendants
(other than Schawver and Perez) had failed to comply with Local
Rule CV-12's timeliness requirement, they had waived their right to
move for summary judgment based on qualified immunity.
Nevertheless, the district court proceeded in the alternative to
analyze the merits of the qualified immunity claims under the
relevant legal test and found, for the most part, that the
defendants’ actions were not objectively reasonable. As the
district court concluded that the Gordons could not allege
sufficient facts to state legally cognizable § 1983 or state law
claims for defamation, libel, and slander, however, it granted
summary judgment as to all defendants on these claims. Also, as to
defendants Schawver (the dispatcher), Perez, and Westfall, the
court granted summary judgment on the Gordons’ malicious
prosecution claims (both federal and state); and as to defendant
Schawver, the court granted summary judgment on the Gordons’
excessive force claim (both federal and state). In all other
respects and on all other claims, the court denied summary judgment
based on qualified immunity.
The waiver defendants then moved for reconsideration, urging,
inter alia, that they had not waived their qualified immunity
defenses by failing to comply with Local Rule CV-12. Noting that
10
it had also ruled that the defendants’ actions were objectively
unreasonable, the court denied the motions for reconsideration.
The police officers, dispatcher Schawver, and investigator Westfall
timely filed interlocutory appeals. To the extent that the
district court ruled in the defendants’ favor by dismissing some of
the claims, the Gordons have not cross-appealed.
II. ANALYSIS
A. Standard of Review
We review the district court’s denial of summary judgment de
novo, applying the same standard as the district court.10 To
determine whether a defendant is shielded by qualified immunity, we
engage a two-part inquiry: (1) whether the plaintiff alleged a
violation of a clearly established constitutional right; and if so,
(2) whether the defendants’ conduct was ctively reasonable.11
We have no jurisdiction to review interlocutory appeals from
the denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity when the
appeal challenges the district court’s ruling that genuine issues
exist concerning material facts.12 We retain jurisdiction over
appeals that challenge questions of law, such as the materiality of
10
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Morris v. Covan World Wide Moving,
Inc., 144 F.3d 377, 380 (5th Cir. 1998).
11
Siegert v. Gilley, 500 U.S. 226, 231-32 (1991).
12
See Jones v. Collins, 132 F.3d 1048, 1051-52 (5th Cir.
1998)
11
the factual issues.13 The determination whether a defendant’s
conduct was objectively reasonable is a question of law,14 but that
question of law can only be reviewed when there are no underlying
genuine disputes of fact.
B. Waiver of Qualified Immunity
The Gordons urge affirmance of the district court’s ruling
that the waiver defendants waived their right to seek summary
judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. Echoing the district
court’s reasoning, the Gordons’ assertion cited the waiver
defendants’ failure to comply with iling requirements of Local Rule
CV-12 of the Western District of Texas.15
The Gordons filed their original complaint in this matter on
January 14, 2000, and summons were issued forthwith to Dispatcher
Schawver, and Officers Ortiz, Douglas, Sanchez, Perez, and Paez.
Initially, Perez and Schawver submitted a joint answer asserting a
defense of qualified immunity; but, within the thirty-day period
13
Bazan v. Hidalgo County, 246 F.3d 481, 490 (5th Cir. 2001):
The controlling jurisdictional rule for this
interlocutory appeal comports with this: ‘A denial of [a
motion for summary judgment based on] qualified immunity
is immediately appealable under the collateral order
doctrine, when based on an issue of law.’....
Accordingly, we have jurisdiction for this interlocutory
appeal if it challenges the materiality of factual
issues, but lack jurisdiction if it challenges the
district court’s genuineness ruling —— that genuine
issues exist concerning material facts. (emphasis in
original) (citations omitted).
14
Id.15
See supra note 9 for text of rule.
12
prescribed by Rule CV-12, those two filed a joint motion to dismiss
the claims against them based on qualified immunity, which motion
was denied by the court. Their denied dismissal motion, which was
noticed to and served on the lawyers for the four waiver defendants
(co-defendants Ortiz, Douglas, Sanchez, and Paez16) expressly stated
that this motion was submitted to comply with the temporal
requirements of Local Rule CV-12.
Puzzlingly, defendants Ortiz, Douglas, and Sanchez also
submitted an Original Answer, asserting a qualified immunity
defense, and on the same day, filed a Rule 12(b)(6) motion for
dismissal. Significantly, however, their dismissal motion was
based not on a federal qualified immunity defense, but on the
assertion that Texas Torts Claims Act and “derivative immunity”
under Texas state law barred plaintiffs’ claims. Correctly finding
those arguments legally irrelevant and inapplicable, the district
court denied the motion.
Waiver defendants Westfall and Rutherford (like Ortiz,
Douglas, Paez, and Sanchez) failed to file motions for dismissal or
summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds within the time
prescribed by CV-12, although it appears that eventually they too
“asserted” qualified immunity or some form of official immunity in
16
The other individual defendants in this appeal, Officers
Rutherford and Investigator Westfall, were added as defendants in
the Gordons’ subsequent amended complaints, so they were not
subject to the same time line for filing as Ortiz, Douglas, Paez,
and Sanchez.
13
their answers to the Gordons’ amended complaints. Still, their
pleadings alone are not sufficient to comply with the plain
language of CV-12, which unequivocally requires (1) the filing of
a motion (2) for qualified immunity dismissal, (3) within a
specified time.17 On appeal, the six waiver defendants argue that
(1) their “assertions” of qualified immunity in their answers gave
notice to the Gordons that they would be defending on qualified
immunity grounds, (2) the Gordons were not prejudiced by their non-
compliance with CV-12, and (3) moving for dismissal or summary
judgment would have been a meaningless gesture because the court
had already denied Perez and Schawver’s motion for dismissal.
We are unpersuaded by the waiver defendants’ arguments.
First, although it is true that their qualified immunity assertions
in their respective answers probably amounted to actual notice that
eventually they would move for judgment on those grounds, the plain
language of CV-12 required them to submit a motion rather than
informally provide actual notice. Their co-defendants, Perez and
Schawver, complied with the rule by asserting qualified immunity in
17
Officers Ortiz, Douglas, and Sanchez filed their original
answer on February 28, 2000; Officer Paez filed his amended answer
on June 20, 2000; Officer Rutherford filed his original answer on
June 22, 2000; Investigator Westfall filed his answer ro the
Gordons’ second amended complaint on November 13, 2000. The first
motion for dismissal based on qualified immunity submitted by all
six of these defendants (Ortiz, Douglas, Sanchez, Rutherford, Paez,
and Westfall) was filed on February 16, 2001, well in excess of the
period mandated by Local Rule CV-12, which specifies that the
motion must be filed in the defendant’s initial pleading or within
thirty days of that initial pleading.
14
their answer and then timely filing a motion for dismissal on those
grounds. If nothing else, this conduct, of which the waiver
defendants received notice, should have prompted them to do
likewise.
We are aware that at least one district court case supports
the proposition that failure to comply with Local Rule CV-12 will
not, in every case, automatically constitute waiver of the right to
assert the qualified immunity defense at the summary judgment
stage. In an unpublished opinion for Chacon v. Housing Authority
of El Paso,18 the Western District of Texas rejected the plaintiff’s
claim that the defendant had procedurally waived his qualified
immunity defense by failing to comply timely with CV-12.19 In
addition to noting the lack of precedential support for that
plaintiff’s waiver argument, the Western District also noted that
(1) “various procedural hurdles not entirely outside of Plaintiff’s
control weigh against any waiver” and (2) the plaintiff had not
contended or demonstrated any prejudice from the delay. Here, the
18
2000 WL 33348200 (W.D. Tex. 2000) (unpublished).
19
Id.:
Although the immunity determination should be made “at
the earliest possible state of a litigation,” Martin
simply does not support Plaintiff’s contention that
Alvarado’s noncompliance with Local Rule CV-12 should
constitute waiver, abrogating the important policy
underlying the immunity, namely protecting the public by
permitting its decision-makers to act without fear of
unanticipated personal liability. (quoting Anderson v.
Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 646 n.6 (1987) and citing Martin
v. Thomas, 973 F.2d 449, 458-59 (5th Cir. 1992).
15
Gordons did nothing to prevent, hamper, or otherwise complicate the
defendants’ ability to comply with CV-12. Furthermore, as
discussed more fully below, the Gordons can demonstrate that they
would suffer prejudice from the defendants’ non-compliance if it
were disregarded.
Contrary to Chacon, a recently published case from the Eastern
District of Texas, Hucker v. Beaumont, supports the general
proposition that a defendant may be procedurally barred from
asserting a qualified immunity defense as a basis for dismissal
before trial.20 In Hucker, the defendant police officer failed to
file a timely responsive pleading to the plaintiff’s complaint as
required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b). Instead, after the responsive
pleading deadline had passed, the defendant submitted a motion for
summary judgment based on qualified immunity. As the defendant
completely missed the Rule 12(b) deadline, the court ruled that he
had waived the right to assert a qualified immunity defense at that
stage of the litigation.21
To repeat, the Gordons present a viable argument that they
would be prejudiced if CV-12 were disregarded for purposes of
waiver. Some of the waiver defendants submitted their summary
judgment motions more than a year after they were required to by
20
Hucker v. Beaumont, 144 F.Supp. 2d 696 (2001).
21
Id. at 702 (“Although the City of Beaumont defendants
subsequently entered an Amended Motion for Summary Judgment ...
this Court holds that Officer Jagneaux is barred from asserting the
defense of qualified immunity under 12(b).”)
16
Rule CV-12. In the interim, the Gordons had completed all
discovery —— which in this case involved numerous interrogatories
and depositions regarding a multitude of claims —— and were ready
for trial. Rule CV-12 contemplates a timely qualified immunity
motion as an aid in determining the necessity and scope of
discovery, not as a post-discovery tool.22 The Gordons insist that
if the waiver defendants had timely filed motions for dismissal
based on qualified immunity, then they (the Gordons) either (1)
would not have had to conduct extensive discovery, or (2) would
have narrowly focused their discovery on overcoming that defense.
Also, a timely consideration of the qualified immunity question
might have eliminated some of the Gordons’ constitutional claims,
thereby minimizing the scope and cost of their discovery and trial
preparation. Now, after having incurred significant expenditures
of time and money in preparing for trial, the Gordons would suffer
prejudice if the district court were to disregard Rule CV-12 and
consider the waiver defendants’ qualified immunity defenses.
The waiver defendants’ third and final argument —— that the
district court’s ruling on Perez’s and Schawver’s motion rendered
any motions by other the defendants meaningless —— is nothing more
than a transparent, post-hoc rationalization for having missed the
22
Local Rule CV-12 (in relevant part, “[w]hen a party files
a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment based on [qualified
immunity], the opposing party shall have eleven days ... to file a
response and to specify what, if any, discovery is necessary to
determine the issue(s) of [qualified immunity] and the time period
necessary for the specific discovery.”).
17
CV-12 deadline. Defendants Ortiz, Douglas, and Sanchez filed their
joint Original Answer on February 28, 2000; Perez and Schawver did
not submit their Rule CV-12 motion to dismiss based on qualified
immunity until March 9, 2000; and the court ruled on it on March
30. Pursuant to CV-12, the deadline for Ortiz, Douglas, and
Sanchez to have filed a qualified immunity dismissal motion had
already passed by the time the court ruled on Perez and Schawver’s
motion. Therefore, these waiver defendants cannot now assert that
their failure to file a motion in compliance with Local Rule CV-12
was premised on their reliance on the district court’s adverse
ruling on their co-defendants’ motion.
In sum, the waiver defendants’ failure to comply with the
plain language and time requirements of Local Rule CV-12, combined
with the facts that (1) the Gordons did not facilitate or otherwise
cause the non-compliance, (2) the waiver defendants were alerted to
the requirements of CV-12 by receiving copies of their co-
defendants’ motion, and (3) the Gordons could suffer prejudice,
justifies the district court’s ruling that those defendants waived
their right to move for summary judgment based on qualified
immunity at this stage of the litigation. In affirming the
district court’s ruling that defendants Ortiz, Douglas, Paez,
Sanchez, Rutherford, and Westfall waived their right to move for
qualified immunity, we do not completely bar them from asserting
the defense; they may still assert it as an affirmative defense at
trial.
18
C. Merits of Qualified Immunity Defense
As only Schawver and Perez properly and timely moved for
summary judgment based on qualified immunity in compliance with
Local Rule CV-12, we now address the merits of their defenses.
1. Dispatcher Schawver
The district court, concluding that Schawver’s actions were
objectively unreasonable under clearly established law, denied
qualified immunity against the Gordons’ claims for violation of
their rights to free speech and to be free from unreasonable
searches, seizures, and arrests. Our review of the record
convinces us that Schawver is entitled to qualified immunity.
As detailed above in the Facts and Proceedings section of this
opinion, Schawver’s involvement in this case is limited to the
dispatch call that she broadcasted to all officers (and which was
received by those who eventually stopped, searched, and arrested
the Gordons) but to none specifically. In making the dispatch
call, Schawver did nothing more than rephrase and repeat the
information that she had received from the Texas state trooper who
had called her regarding the possibility of trouble involving
Engleton’s surviving brother(s). Schawver’s admonition to use
caution was reasonable in light of the reported appearance by the
brother(s) near the crime scene and funerals, and of his (their)
possible past criminal history. Schawver did not relate any facts
that she knew or should have known were untrue, did not exacerbate
the situations by using inflammatory rhetoric, and did not state or
19
suggest that the suspects had committed or were in the process of
committing a crime. Rather, consistent with the essentially non-
discretionary duties of such dispatchers, she merely relayed the
trooper’s information. Under these circumstances, her dispatch
call was objectively reasonable, entitling her to qualified
immunity.
2. Officer Perez
On an interlocutory appeal of an order that denied a motion
for summary judgment grounded in qualified immunity, we may not
review rulings based on the district court’s determination that
genuine disputes exist concerning material facts.23 In other words,
we retain jurisdiction only over those issues that rest on
undisputed fact situations, or on which the defendants are willing
to accept the plaintiffs’ allegations as true.24 Here, the
defendants’ contentions regarding the location and visibility of
the baton found by Officer Paez conflict with the Gordons’
allegations. As a result, this case presents at least one genuine
factual dispute that we now analyze to ascertain its materiality
vel non to the qualified immunity determination.
As the Gordons argued in their Response to Defendants’ Motions
23
Bazan, 246 F.3d at 490 (see supra n.13).
24
Officer Perez in his appellate brief, maintains that Officer
Paez saw the baton in “plain view.” Cf. Jones, 132 F.3d at 1052(finding jurisdiction proper because the defendant asserting
qualified immunity accepted the plaintiff’s version of the facts
for purposes of summary judgment)
20
for Summary Judgment, there is a considerable dispute whether the
baton was visible at all, absent a directed, intrusive, and
impermissible search of the car. Officer Paez stated that when he
walked near the open driver’s-side door, he peered into the pouch
located on the inside of the door and saw the baton lying at the
bottom of the pouch. According to the recollection of Officer
Perez who was standing near the open passenger’s-side door, he
could see a few inches of one end of the baton protruding from the
pouch at an angle.
In direct contradiction to both officers’ accounts —— which
themselves are inconsistent and thus raise a credibility question
—— Adrian Gordon avers that not only was the baton at the bottom of
the pouch, it was covered completely by numerous articles, such as
napkins, a tape measure, and bottles of various kinds, which
together totally obstructed it from view. He added that the baton
had been at the bottom of the ten-inch deep pouch for so long that
he had forgotten that it was even in there. Keith Gordon
corroborated his father’s story, stating that he had never seen the
baton before and was not even aware of its presence in the pouch
until it was removed by Officer Paez.
In addition to these genuinely disputed material facts, the
district court noted Paez’s admission that, at the time he looked
inside the truck, he did not know (1) who the truck belonged to,
(2) if the plaintiffs were lawfully detained, (3) why the
plaintiffs were detained, (4) whether the owner of the baton had a
21
permit to carry it, and (5) whether the detained persons had
engaged in, or had been alleged to have engaged in, criminal
activity. The court also took note of the fact that deposition
testimony indicated that Officer Paez, now a reserve officer for
the Jourdanton police department, had been fired from the Atacosta
County’s Sheriff’s Department for sleeping while guarding a
prisoner.
In Terry v. Ohio, the Supreme Court held that, under limited
circumstances, police officers may perform a “stop and frisk” in
the absence of a warrant and probable cause.25 Subsequently, in
Mitchell v. Long, the Supreme Court upheld the search of the
passenger compartment of an automobile during a traffic stop.26
The facts and reasoning of Mitchell, however, are easily
distinguishable from the facts presented in this case, making that
case inapposite. In Mitchell, two police deputies, while on
25
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 30 (1968):
We merely hold today that where a police officer observes
unusual conduct which leads him reasonably to conclude in
light of his experience that criminal activity may be
afoot and the persons with whom he is dealing may be
armed and presently dangerous, where in the course of
investigating this behavior he identifies himself as a
policeman and makes reasonable inquiries, and where
nothing in the initial stages of the encounter serves to
dispel his reasonable fear of his own or others’ safety,
he is entitled for the protection of himself and others
in the area to conduct a carefully limited search of the
outer clothing of such persons in an attempt to discover
weapons which might be used to assault him (emphasis
added).
26
Mitchell v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032 (1983).
22
patrol, observed a car that was moving erratically and at excessive
speed swerve into a shallow ditch on the side of the road. When
the officers approached the driver, he was unresponsive to their
questions and requests, and he appeared to be under the influence
of drugs or alcohol. Simply looking into the vehicle, the officers
saw a hunting knife on the floorboard of the driver’s side of the
car. Based on these undisputed facts, the officers performed a
Terry frisk of the driver’s person, and then, to make sure that the
driver possessed no other weapons, one officer shined his
flashlight into the vehicle and, without entering it, saw
something protruding from underneath the armrest on the passenger
side. Still searching for other weapons, the officers discovered
that the protruding pouch contained marijuana, after which an
extended search revealed a large quantity of marijuana in the trunk
of the vehicle, for which the driver was tried and convicted.
The Supreme Court in Mitchell rejected the driver’s contention
that the search exceeded the bounds of a legitimate Terry search,
stating that:
[T]he search of the passenger compartment of an
automobile, limited to those areas in which a weapon may
be placed or hidden, is permissible if the police officer
possesses a reasonable belief based on specific and
articulable facts which, taken together with the rational
inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant the
officers in believing that the suspect is dangerous and
the suspect may gain immediate control of weapons.27
Further, the Court clarified, “[w]e stress that our decision does
27
Id. at 1049-50 (citations and internal quotations omitted).
23
not mean that the police may conduct automobile searches whenever
they conduct an investigative stop ....”28
Given the distinguishable facts and circumstances of the
instant case, the exigency and justification for the searches in
Terry and Mitchell simply do not appertain here. By the time Paez
found the baton, other officers had already handcuffed the Gordons
and had checked and verified their identifications. The Gordons
had cooperated with all of the officers’ instructions, had not
resisted their restraint, and had truthfully answered all the
officers’ questions. In short, the summary judgment evidence
indicates that the officers had confirmed their misidentification
of the Gordons as somehow related to Engleton and had come up with
no tangible evidence or indication on which to base further
detention of the Gordons.
Furthermore, by the time their investigation had reached this
point, the officers no longer had any facts on which to form a
reasonable suspicion that the Gordons were a danger to anyone or
would pose a danger once they were released from the handcuffs and
allowed to proceed. In fact, given the Gordons’ confirmed
identifications and the other information the officers possessed,
there was no basis for a belief that the Gordons would do anything
other than peaceably return to their truck and continue their
28
Id. at 1049, n.14.
24
father-and-son pleasure trip to Ports Mansfield.29 Under the
totality of these circumstances, the search of the compartments of
the vehicle exceeded the legitimate bounds, purposes, and
justifications for a Terry/Mitchell search.
Our analysis confirms that the visibility and obviousness of
the baton is a fact that is material to the legal analysis of this
case. The only version of the facts that could justify Paez’s
procurement of the baton would be its visibility in plain view, but
as we already noted, there exists a genuine factual dispute between
the parties as to whether the baton was in plain view. On summary
judgment, we must view the facts in the light most favorable to the
non-movant —— here, the Gordons. Given this genuine dispute of
material fact, and our requirement of viewing the facts in the
light most favorable to the non-movant, we are constrained by our
jurisdictional limits to refrain from reviewing the issues related
to this genuine and material factual dispute. The discovery of the
baton is used by the defendants in an effort to justify the
continued restraint of the Gordons, prompting the full search of
the vehicle that in turn uncovered the gun for which Adrian Gordon
29
In response to a question from a member of this panel at
oral argument, counsel for some of the defendants attempted to
justify the vehicle search under Mitchell’s extension of the Terry
doctrine on the rationale that the detainees would return to the
truck after being released and could then constitute a threat.
Under other circumstances that contention might wash, but not here:
The officers’ error in stopping the Gordons as a result of mistaken
identity had already been determined and any Terry or Mitchell
justifications debunked before the unconsented to, warrantless
search of the vehicle was ever commenced.
25
was mistakenly arrested, detained, and charged. Under these
circumstances, we must dismiss for lack of appellate jurisdiction,
Perez’s interlocutory appeal of the district court’s denial of
summary judgment on the Gordons’ claims for unconstitutional
arrest, search, seizure, malicious prosecution, excessive force,
and violation of equal protection and free speech rights.
D. The 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985 and 1986 Claims
In addition to the § 1983 claims, the Gordons assert claims
grounded in §§ 1985 and 1986, for conspiracy to deprive them of
their constitutional rights and negligence in preventing the
violation of their constitutional rights. The defendants in their
briefs argue that, because the Gordons cannot state a viable § 1983
claim, §§ 1985 and 1986 are inapplicable.30 The district court
ruled that because the defendants are not entitled to qualified
immunity from the Gordons’ § 1983 claims, summary dismissal of the
§§ 1985 and 1986 claims would not be proper at this stage. As we
agree that at least some of the Gordons’ § 1983 claims survive
summary judgment, we also agree that their §§ 1985 and 1986 claims
remain viable as well. We therefore affirm this aspect of the
district court’s decision.
E. State Law Tort Claims and State Law Immunity
Finally, the district court granted in part and denied in part
30
42 U.S.C. §§ 1985, 1986 (violation of § 1985 premised on
the deprivation of a federally-protected right; violation of § 1986
premised on liability for a § 1985 claim).
26
summary judgment on the Gordons’ parallel state law tort claims.
Under Texas law, a police officer is entitled to “official
immunity” from suit when the claims arise from the performance of
(1) discretionary duties, (2) performed in good faith, as long as
the officer is (3) acting within the scope of his authority.31
Although the Texas immunity test is articulated differently than
the federal test, the Supreme Court of Texas has stated that the
Texas test is derived “substantially” from the federal qualified
immunity standard.32 Moreover, under the Texas test, immunity
issues are less likely to be resolved at summary judgment than they
would be under the federal test.33 Therefore, to the extent we
affirm the district court’s order with respect to the federal
immunity claims, we also affirm the court’s rulings on the parallel
state law issues.
31
Cantu v. Rocha, 77 F.3d 795, 808 (5th Cir. 1996).
32
City of Lancaster v. Chambers, 883 S.W. 2d 650, 656-57
(Tex. 1994).
33
Id.27
III. CONCLUSION
We affirm the district court’s rulings as to Officers Ortiz,
Douglas, Sanchez, Rutherford, Paez, Perez, and Investigator
Westfall, but we reverse the court’s ruling as to Dispatcher
Schawver, who we hold to be entitled to dismissal based on
qualified immunity.
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part.
28