Morales v. Cardenas ( 2023 )

Case: 22-50836 Document: 00516917479 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/03/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
____________ FILED
October 3, 2023
No. 22-50836 Lyle W. Cayce
____________ Clerk
Fernando Morales, Individually and on behalf of his minor children,
F.M. and D.M.; Zerenia Cardoza, in her Individual Capacity,
Plaintiffs—Appellees,
versus
Ruben Cardenas,
Defendant—Appellant.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 3:19-CV-217
______________________________
Before Stewart, Dennis, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
This appeal arises out of an incident involving a physical altercation
between Fernando Morales and Enrique Carrillo (“E. Carrillo”), an off-duty
El Paso police officer, and his son, Aaron Carrillo (“A. Carrillo”). Ruben
Cardenas, a sergeant in the El Paso Police Department (“EPPD”), arrived at
the scene to investigate. Morales and his wife, Zerenia Cardoza, who
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-50836 Document: 00516917479 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/03/2023
No. 22-50836
witnessed the altercation, sued Cardenas and the Carrillos under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 alleging that they conspired to frame Morales for assault in violation
of his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights. The district court denied
Cardenas’s motion for summary judgment on the basis of qualified
immunity. Cardenas timely filed this interlocutory appeal. Because we lack
appellate jurisdiction to consider the arguments Cardenas raises, we dismiss
his appeal.
I. Factual and Procedural History
On July 1, 2017, Morales—accompanied by his wife, Cardoza; their
two minor children; his cousin, Yesenia Jaquez; Jaquez’s son; and Sonia
Baca, a family friend—drove through the parking lot of an El Paso Walmart
after leaving a nearby water park. While driving, Morales nearly collided with
a car driven by E. Carrillo, an off-duty EPPD officer, who was accompanied
by his adult son A. Carrillo. Morales alleges that after exiting his vehicle he
approached the Carrillos’ vehicle and, without any physical provocation, A.
Carrillo exited his vehicle, grabbed Morales from behind, placed him in a
chokehold, pulled him to the ground, and continued to choke him. According
to Morales, as he struggled against the chokehold, E. Carrillo began punching
his head and body.
Pete Herrera, another off-duty EPPD officer, witnessed the
altercation and called 911. During the 911 call, Herrera recognized E. Carrillo
and decided to approach the fight and intervene. Of the EPPD officers
dispatched to the scene, Officer Julio Guereca arrived first to the scene but
did not recognize E. Carrillo. Guereca spoke to both E. Carrillo and Morales,
each of whom blamed the other for starting the fight. Thereafter, Cardenas
arrived at the scene and took over the investigation. According to Morales,
upon his arrival, Cardenas greeted E. Carrillo enthusiastically by “hugging,
laughing, talking and dancing,” and the two acted “like best friends meeting
2
Case: 22-50836 Document: 00516917479 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/03/2023
No. 22-50836
at a class reunion.” Morales also saw A. Carrillo wrap his arms around
Cardenas’s throat, demonstrating the chokehold he had earlier performed on
Morales. Morales believed that the gestures were mockingly portrayed as
several officers laughed at the reenactment.
Next, Guereca interviewed Cardoza and Jaquez and took notes about
the incident in a small notebook. While Guereca spoke with Cardoza and
Jaquez, Cardenas took Guereca aside. At the end of his conversation with
Cardenas, Guereca tore out the top few pages of the small notebook where
he had been writing and crumpled them in his hand. Neither Cardoza nor
Jaquez saw what happened to the crumpled pages. After speaking with the
Carrillos, Herrera, and other witnesses, Cardenas spoke to Morales.
Hereafter, Cardenas informed Morales that he had determined that Morales
was the aggressor in the fight with the Carrillos. He handcuffed Morales and
put him in the back of Officer Gabriel Lechuga’s cruiser. Morales, who had a
significant cut on his chin, asked Cardenas if he could receive medical aid but
Cardenas told the arriving Emergency Medical Services that the EPPD did
not need assistance.
Still at the scene and after questioning Morales, Cardenas spoke to
Cardoza and Jaquez. According to Jaquez, in response to her numerous
requests for medical aid on behalf of Morales, Cardenas threatened to arrest
her for public intoxication. After conducting a background check on both
Cardoza and Jaquez, Cardenas discovered nine outstanding arrest warrants
for traffic violations attributed to Cardoza. Cardenas then cautioned Cardoza
that if she refused to cooperate in the investigation, he would arrest her for
the traffic violations. Cardoza replied that since Cardenas refused to listen to
her side of the story, she was done talking to him. In response, Cardenas
arrested her under the outstanding warrants and refused her pleas to change
out of her swimming suit before leaving for the police station.
3
Case: 22-50836 Document: 00516917479 Page: 4 Date Filed: 10/03/2023
No. 22-50836
Overall, the investigation lasted several hours. After Morales was
arrested for assault, Lechuga took him to a nearby Las Palmas medical facility
where he was treated for a fractured eye socket, received four stitches on his
chin, and with his consent, had blood drawn, which revealed blood alcohol
levels just below the presumptive intoxication range. While awaiting trial on
his assault charge, Morales was indicted for the felony charge of driving
minor children while intoxicated on the day of the altercation. That felony
indictment was later dismissed for insufficient evidence. A jury subsequently
found Morales not guilty of assault.
Morales filed this § 1983 action against the Carrillos and Cardenas,
alleging that they violated his due process rights by deliberately conspiring to
frame and bring false charges against him. The district court denied
Cardenas’s motion for summary judgment on the basis of qualified
immunity. Cardenas filed this interlocutory appeal. Because material factual
disputes exist concerning qualified immunity, we dismiss for lack of appellate
jurisdiction.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
“The denial of a motion for summary judgment based on qualified
immunity is immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine to the
extent that it turns on an issue of law.” Flores v. City of Palacios, 381 F.3d 391,
393 (5th Cir. 2004) (internal quotation omitted); see also Winfrey v. Pikett, 872
F.3d 640, 643 (5th Cir. 2017) (“The district court’s denial of summary
judgment is immediately appealable to the extent it turns on an issue of law.”
(internal quotation omitted)). Where the district court determines “that
genuine issues of material fact preclude a determination of qualified
immunity, we have jurisdiction only to address the legal question of whether
the genuinely disputed factual issues are material for the purposes of
summary judgment.” Lytle v. Bexar Cnty., 560 F.3d 404, 408 (5th Cir. 2009).
4
Case: 22-50836 Document: 00516917479 Page: 5 Date Filed: 10/03/2023
No. 22-50836
We have no jurisdiction to consider the correctness of the plaintiff’s version
of the facts and cannot review the district court’s factual determination that
a genuine factual dispute exists. See Michalik v. Hermann, 422 F.3d 252, 257
(5th Cir. 2005) (“We have no jurisdiction to hear an interlocutory appeal . . .
when a district court’s denial of qualified immunity rests on the basis that
genuine issues of material fact exist.”). “Within this limited appellate
jurisdiction,” we review a “denial of a motion for summary judgment on the
basis of qualified immunity in a § 1983 suit de novo.” Winfrey, 872 F.3d at 644(internal quotation omitted).
III. DISCUSSION
Our analysis begins and ends by addressing whether we have appellate
jurisdiction over Cardenas’s appeal. We hold that we lack jurisdiction over
his appeal because it “boils down to a challenge of the genuineness, not the
materiality, of factual disputes.” Id. On appeal, Cardenas avers that he is
entitled to summary judgment because the evidence the district court
recounted was insufficient to support an inference that he entered into an
agreement to frame Morales. Morales, on the other hand, contends that we
lack jurisdiction to hear this appeal because Cardenas’s arguments merely
rest on factual disputes as opposed to addressing the legal issue of whether
the district court erred as a matter of law. Morales has the better argument.
An order that resolves a fact-related dispute of the sufficiency of
evidence is not immediately appealable and must await final judgment to be
appealed. See Cantu v. Rocha, 77 F.3d 795, 802 (5th Cir. 1996). In the instant
case, the district court identified many material facts as genuinely disputed.
Specifically, the parties dispute: (1) which party was the initial instigator of
the altercation, (2) whether Cardenas decided to take the Carrillos’ side
shortly after arriving on the scene or only after conducting a thorough
investigation, (3) whether Cardenas directed Guereca to destroy his notes as
5
Case: 22-50836 Document: 00516917479 Page: 6 Date Filed: 10/03/2023
No. 22-50836
part of a conspiracy, and (4) whether Cardenas’s tactics while interviewing
Morales’s family members and witnesses—Cardoza and Jaquez—are
probative of his participation in a conspiracy. Cardenas’s argument hinges on
the factual disputes of this case being resolved in his favor. Notably, he does
not assert that, taking all of Morales’s factual allegations as true, no violation
of a clearly established law was shown. Rather, Cardenas argues that he is
entitled to summary judgment because the evidence the district court cited
does not permit an inference that he entered into a conspiracy with the
Carrillos to deprive Morales of his civil rights. But Cardenas’s arguments
only challenge the genuineness of the factual dispute.
The district court denied Cardenas’s motion for summary judgment
as to false charges because “a reasonable jury could find that the Carrillo
Defendants were the initial aggressors and that [E.] Carrillo made false
statements to the police in order to have Morales arrested and convicted of
assault.” We agree. Consequently, we lack jurisdiction to consider
Cardenas’s arguments regarding the genuineness of the district court’s
factual determinations. Winfrey, 872 F.3d at 644.
IV. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, we DISMISS the appeal for lack of
jurisdiction.
6