P urs ua nt t o 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5, t he cour tha s det er m i ned t ha tt hi s opi ni on shou l d not * be p ub l i s he d an d i s no tp r e c e d e nte x c e p tund e rt he l i m i t e d c i r c um s t an c e s s e tf o r t h i n 5 TH C IR . R. 47. 5. 4. I N TH E UN I TED STATES COU RT OF APPEA LS F O R T H E F IF T H C IR C U IT

_____________________ N o. 08- 20564 Su m m ar y Cal endar

_____________________ M A R TH ASC O TT , I ndi vi dual l y, A nd as a R epr es ent at ive o f t he Es t a t e o f

Dav i dSc o t t ; ESTATE OF DAV I D SCO TT; R O B I N D E N I SE B R YA N T, R obi n D eni se B r yantas N ext F ri en d of

I C S , a M i n or and A L S , a M i n or P l ai n t i f fs- A pp el l ees
v. R A U L V E N E G A S, D eput y, i n H i s I ndi vi dual C apac i t y D efen d a n ts- A p p ell a n ts

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or t h e Sou t h ern D i st ri ctof T exas, H ou st on ( 4: 06- C V

- 1436)
B ef ore W IE N E R , ST E W A R T , an d C L E M E N T , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R I A M: * D efen d a n t- A p p ell a n t R a u lV en eg a s, a H a rris C ou n ty, T e x a s d ep u ty sheri f f, app eal s t h e i n t erl ocutory r u l i n g of t h e di st ri ctcourtden yi n g qu al i f i ed i mmu n i t yt o V e n e g a s i n h i s i n d iv i d u a lc a p a c i t yi n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h c l a i ms assert ed p u rs u an tt o 28 U

. S

. C

. § 1983 an d grou n ded i n al l eged vi ol ati on s of United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D April7, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk2

th e F o u r te e n th A m e n d m e n t s u b s ta n tiv e D u e P r o c e s s rig h ts o f d e c e d e n t D a v id S co tt, a p re -tria l d e ta in e e w h o h a d b e e n in th e cu sto d y o f V e n e g a s . P la in t iffs h av e al l eged t h at V en aga s’ s del ivery of Scottt o an i n m ate proc essi n g center

ra th er t h a n to a h osp i tal or othe r m ed i ca l facil i ty, con sti tu te d d e lib era te in d iffe r e n c e to S c o tt ’ s s e r io u s m e d ic a l n e e d s . A dop t i n g t h e rec om m en da t i on s of t h e m agis t rat e j u dg e i n her M em oran du m , R ecom m en da t i on an d O rd e r, t h e di st ri ctcourtden i ed qual i f i ed i m m uni t y t o Venegas bas ed o n t he e xi stenc e o f a di sput e o f

m at er i al fac t , de s c r ibe d b y t he m ag i st rat e j udg e a s “ t w o s i gnif i c ant l y di f

fe r e ntv e r s i o ns

o f ke y pe r s o ns o f

t he e ve nt” a s to the fac t s l e ad i ng up t o Sc o t t ’ s de at h, o ne

v e r s i o n b e i n gth a t o f V e n e g a s a n dth e o th e rb e in gth a t o f E M S p a r a m e d ic K evi n T rayn or. C on cl u di n g th a tt h e “ qu al i f i ed i m m u n i t y an al ysi s [f or Vene gas] h ang s i n t he b al anc e o f t he s e c r i t i c alfac tdi s put e s , ” t he

re c o m m e nda t i o ns o f t he m ag i s t r at e j udg e ad o pt e d by t he di s t r i c tcourt

c o nvi nc e s us t hat , i nde e d, o ne o f t he t w o w i de l y dive r ge ntv e r si on s of t he crit i cal fact s precedi n g S cot t ’ s dea t h w i l l u l t i m atel y determ i n e en t i t l e m e n t of V en egas t o qu al i f

i ed i m m u n i t y. T h i s qu i n t essenti al di spu t e of m ater i al fact dep rives u s of ap pel l ate j u ri sdi ct i on t o revi ew t h e di st ri ct court’ s i n t erl ocutory de ni alo f

q ual i f i e d i m m uni t y att hi s s um m ar y j u dg m en tst ag e o f t heS ee, e. g . , Jo h n son v. Jo n es , 5 1 5 U .S . 3 0 4 , 3 1 9 -2 0 (1 9 9 5 ). 1 3 proceedi n gs. 1 V e n a g a s ’ s a p p e a l o f th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d e n ia l o f q u a l i fie dim m u n ityis D I SM I SSED f

o rl ac k o f

j ur i s di c t i o n.