Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determin ed that thi s opinio n should not * be publishe d an d is not precede nt except under the limit ed circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 10790

VI CT OR A L VA RA DO DE L EO N P l a i n ti ff-A p p ell ee -C ross -A p p ell a n t v. CI TYO F D AL LA S D efen da n t
- C ross A pp el l ee v. M ARK DE L A P AZ D efen da n t
- A pp el l an t
- C ross - A pp el l ee

A p p ea lf

rom the U n i ted S tates D i stri ct C ou rt f or t h e N ort h ern D i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 3: 02- C V

- 1097

B ef ore JO N E S , C h i ef

Ju dg e, an d P R A D O an d H AY N E S , C i rcui tJu dg es . P E R C U R I A M: * T w o q u est i on s are presented by t h i s ap pea l : (1) w h et h er the di st ri ctcourt pro per l y de ni ed s um m ar y j udgm enton t he bas i s of qual i f i ed i m m uni t y t o D al l as p o lic e o ffic e r M a r k D e L a P a z o n V ic to r A lv a r a d o D e L e o n ’ s fa ls e a r r e s t c l a im , and( 2) w he t he rt he di s t r i c tc o urt p ro pe r l y gr ant e d s um m ar y j udg m e ntt o t he United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Aug ust20, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 10790

I n denying

De L a P az ’s motion for su mma ry ju d gm en ton th e b asis of qualifie d 1 immunity, thedistrict courtsimply stated, “ther e are genuin e i ssues of materialfact pre sent that pre clu de th e e ntryof sum maryj udgment, and the court th erefore deni es summary ju dgment onthis cl aim.” 2 Ci t y o f D al l as ( “ t he Ci t y” ) o n DeLe o n’ s Ti t l e VI cl ai m . W e AFF I RM ( and t h erefor e re m a n d ) th e fi rs t issu e a n d D IS M IS S th e se co n d a s w e lac k j u risd iction to con sider i t. I. T h i s c ou rtha s al ready i ssued m u l t i pl e substanti ve rul i n gs ari si n g ou tof t he v e r yl a ws u i tu n d e r l y i n gt h i s a p p e a l
. W e t h e r e f o r e r e fe rt o o n e o f

o ur p r e v io u s d e c is io n s , D e Le o n v . Ci ty of D al l as , 141 F
. A pp ’ x 258 , 259

- 60 (5t h C i r. 2 0 0 5 ), fo ra s ta te m e n t o f th e re le v a n t fa c ts
. II. A. Th e s t andard o f

r evi ew t hat t hi s c our t appl i es i n an i nt er l oc ut or y appe al assert i n g qu al i f

i ed i m m u n i t y di f

fers f rom t h e sta n da rd em pl oyed i n m ost
a p p e a ls o f s u m m a r y ju d g m e n t r u lin g s . Ki n n ey v. W eaver , 3 6 7 F
. 3 d 33 7 , 34 7 ( 5 th C i r. 2 0 0 4 ) (en ba n c). In a n i n terlocu tory ap p ea l , this cou rt l a ck s th e p ow er to
r e vi e w t he di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s de c i s i o n t hata g e nui ne fac t uald i s put e e xi s t s a nd revi ew s onl y “ w h et h er t h e di st ri ctcourterr ed i n assess i n g t h e l egal si gn i f i can ce of t h e condu ct t h at t h e di st ri ct court deem ed su f f i ci en t l y sup ported f

or purp oses of su m m a ryj u d gm en t. ” Id
. a t 3 4 8
. W e a ccep t th e p l a i n ti ff ’ s ve rsion o f th e facts
a s tr u e , i d. , a nd r e vi e w de no vo t he di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s l e ga lde t e r m i nat i o n as t o t he
m a te r ia lity o f th e id e n tifie d fa c t is s u e s . L e m o in e v . Ne w Ho r iz o n s R a n c h & C tr ., Inc. , 174 F
. 3d 629 , 634 ( 5th C i r. 199 9)

. H ow ever, w h ere, as h ere, t h e d istr i ct
cou rt did n ot id en ti fy th e ge n u i n e i ssu es of m a terialfa ct, w e h a ve the op ti on to 1

“ sc ourt he rec or d an d d et er m i ne w hat fac t s t he pl ai nt i f f m ay be abl e t o pr ove at t r i aland pr oc ee d t o r es ol ve t he l egali ss ues , orr em and so t hat t he t r i alc our tc anN o. 08- 10790

3 cl a ri fy the ord er.” T h o mp so n v. U

p sh u r C o u n ty , 245 F .3d 447 , 456 ( 5th C i r. 2 0 0 1 ); see als o Colst o n v. B arn h art , 1 46 F. 3d 2 82 , 2 85 ( 5t h Ci r . 1 99 8) (t he ap pel l ate c ou rtha s t h e au t h ori t y t o “ cond u ctan an al ysi s of t h e sum m ary ju d g m e n t r e c o r d to d e te r m in e w h a t is s u e s o f fa c t t h e d is tr ic t c o u r t p r o b a b ly
co n sid e re d ” in d e n y in gsu m m a ry j u d g m e n t.)

. Q u al i f i ed i m m u n i t y protec t s pu bl i c of f i ci al s f rom sui tun l ess t h ei r c on du ct
v io la te s a cle a r lye s ta b lis h e d co n s tit u tio n a l rig h t. Mac e v . Ci ty of Pale s t i ne , 333 F. 3d 6 21 , 6 23 ( 5t h Ci r . 2 00 3)

. Onc e t he def e ns e of q ual i f i e d i m m uni t y i s r ai s e d, t h e p l ai n t i f

f h as the bu rden to est abli sh fact s t h at over com e t h e defen se . Col l i er v. Mon tgom ery , 5 6 9 F
. 3 d 2 1 4 , 2 1 7 (5th C i r. 20 0 9 ). T h e p l a i n ti ff m u st sh ow tha t: ( 1) t he de fe nda nt ’ s c o nduc tv i ol at e d a c o ns t i t ut i o nalr i ght , a nd ( 2) t he defenda n t ’ s c on du ctw as ob j ect i vel y u n reasona bl e in l i gh tof cl earl y est abli shed la w a s it ex is te d a t th e tim e o f th e c o n d u c t in q u e s tio n . Id
. C ou rt s m ay “exerc i se t h ei r s ou n d d i scr et i on i n deci di n g w h i ch of t h e t w o prong s of

t h e qu al i f

i ed i m m uni t y ana l ys i s s ho ul d b e a ddr e s s e d f i r s ti n l i ghtof

t he ci r c um s t anc e s i n t he p a rti cu l a r cas e a t ha n d
. ” Pe ar s o n v . Cal l aha n , 1 2 9 S . C t. 8 0 8 , 8 1 8 (2 0 0 9 ). T h e ri gh tt o be f

ree f rom arres tw i t h ou tprobab l e cause i s a r i gh tsec u red b yth e F o u r th A m e n d m e n t. D an i elv. F erguson , 839 F .2d 1 1 2 4 , 112 9 ( 5th C i r. 19 88 )

. “ The Supr e m e Cour tha s de f i ne d p r o ba bl e c aus e a s t he fa c t s a nd ci rcu m sta n c e s w ith i n the off i cer’ s k n ow l ed ge tha t are su ff i ci en t t o w a rra n t a pru den tperson, or on e of reasona bl e cauti on , i n bel i evi n g, i n t h e ci rcum st an ces sho w n, t hat t he suspe c th as com m i t t ed, i s c om m i t t i ng, ori s aboutt o c om m i tan offen se.” C l u b R et ro, L
. L
. C

. v. H i l t on , 568 F. 3d 181, 204 ( 5t h C i r . 2009) (i nt er nal quo t at i o n m ar ks a nd c i t at i o ns o m i t t e d)

. Pr o ba bl e c aus e c anno te xi s tw he r e t he af f i da vi tsup po r t i ng a w ar r antco nt ai ns m at e r i alfal s e s t at e m e nt s o ro m i s s i o ns t hata r e de l iber at e fal s e ho o ds o re vi de nc e a r e c kl e s s di s r e ga r d f o rt he t r ut h. Fran ks v. D elaw are , 4 3 8 U .S . 1 5 4 , 1 5 5 -5 6 (1 9 7 8 ).N o. 08- 10790

De L a P az ’s main argument tothis co urt is that the April 1 9 arrest, whichwas ma de 2 byoth er officers, was suppor t edb y t he alternate probablecause that DeL eonwas an undo cum ente d alie n . B e c a u s ew e conc ludethat theJune arres t wa s bas ed s olely on De La Paz’s false affidavit, we nee d not a ddress th e dubio us argu ment that an officer can givea knowinglyfalse affidavit and avoid liabilityby the fortuityth at, after the fact, he maybeab le toargu e so meo th erb a si s f orth e arr es t. 4 A s t h e t w o- pron g qu al i f i ed i m m u n i t y t esti s app l i ed to t h i s c ase, w e cann ot
sa y t hat t he di st r i c tc our tc om m i t t ed r eve r sibl e e r r ori n denyi ng D e La Paz
s um m ar y j udg m e nto n t he b as i s o f q ual i f i e d i m m uni t y. The s e c o nd pr o ng o f t he
ana l ys i s i s easi l y s at i s f i e d he r e . W he n De La Paz s ubm i t t e d hi s a f f i da vi t , t he l a w w a s cl ea rl y e stab l i sh ed , an d a re a son a b l e off i cer w ou l d h a ve k n ow n , th a t a g o v e r n m e n t o ffic ia l v io la te s th e F o u r th A m e n d m e n t w h e n h e d e lib e r a te ly p r o v id e s fa ls e , m a te r ia l in fo r m a tio n in a n a ffid a v it in s u p p o r t o f a w a r r a n t. S ee Hartv. O ’

B ri en , 1 2 7 F .3 d 4 2 4 , 4 4 8 -4 9 (5 th C ir .), abr ogat e d on ot hergr ounds by K ali n a v. Fl et cher , 5 2 2 U .S . 1 1 8 (1 9 9 7 ). A s f or t h e f i rstprong , w e agree w i t h t h e di st ri ct court t h at a m ater i alfact i ssu e exi st s as t o w het herD e La Paz’ s c onductvi ol at ed D eLeon’ s Fourth Am e ndm e ntr i ght s . DeLe o n was a r r e s t e d t w i c e –o nc e o n A pri l1 9, 2 00 1, a nd agai n on June 11, 2001. Af t er D eLeon’ s A pri l19 a r r es t , D e La Paz s ubm i t t ed an
ar r e s tw ar r anta f

f i da vi t , a l l e gi ng t hath e wi t n e s s e d DeLe o n pa r t i c i pa t e i n a dr ug t ran sact i on an d requ est i n g t h at an a rres tw arran tbe i ssued on these charges. D e Leo n c l ai m s t hatD e La P az s ubm i t t e d t he a f f i da vi tkno w i ng t hatt he i n form ati o n i tc o nt ai ne d was fal s e , a nd d e ni e s pa r t i c i pa t i ng i n o re ve n t he occurrence of

a dru g t ran sact i on on A pri l19. D e L a P a z ha s not cha l l en ged D e L e o n ’ s a lle g a tio n s , d e fe n d e d h is a ffid a v it, o rp o in te d to a lte r n a te p r o b a b le
c a u s e fo rth e J u n e 1 1 a r r e s t. D e L e o n s p e n t a p p r o x im a te ly th r e e m o n th s in ja il as a resul tof

t h e Ju n e 11 arrest
. Iti s un di spu t ed that t h e w arran ti ssued as a r e s ul to f

D e L a Paz ’ s af

f i da vi tw as t he onl y ba s i s f o rpr o ba bl e c aus e f

o rt he J une 11 ar r es t
. Thu s, w het hert he drug tr ansac t i on occ urr ed and w het herD e La Paz

2N o. 08- 10790

See 2 8U .S .C

. § 1 2 9 2 (b); F ED . R. C IV . P. 5 4 (b). 3 See Cohen v. Beneficial In dus . Loan Cor p. , 33 7 U .S. 54 1, 5 45-4 7 (194 9) (c oll ater al 4 or de r do ctrin e) ; For

gayv. C

onrad , 4 7U .S

. 2 0 1 , 2 0 4( 1 8 4 8) (h ard ship -irreparab lein j ury); United States v. Garner , 74 9 F .2d 2 81, 287 -88 (5thC ir. 1 985) (ord er s p uttingth e party “eff ectivelyo ut of

c ourt”)

. 5 k n o w in g ly fa ls if

ie d h is a ff

id a v it a r e fa c t is s u e s m a t e r ia l to w h e t h e r D e L a P a z ’s
c o nduc tv i o l at e d DeLe o n’ s Fo ur t h Am e n d m e n tr i g h tt o b e f r e e f r o m a r r e s ta bs e nt pr o ba bl e c aus e . The di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s rul i ng o n t hi s poi nts ho ul d b e a f f i r m e d a nd th e ca s e re m a n d e d fo rtr ia l.

B. Tu r ni ng t o D eLeon’ s c l ai m agai nst t he C i t y, as a gener al r ul e, “ ‘ a par t i al di spo si t i on o f

a m ul t i

- c l ai m o r m u l ti

- par t y ac t i on doe s notqual i f y as a f i nal d ecisi on . . . an d i s ord i n a ri l y a n u n a p p ea l a b l e interlocu tory ord er.’” T h ompson v . B etts , 754 F. 2d 1243, 1245 ( 5t h C i r . 1985) ( quot i ng H u ckeby v. Fro ze n Fo od Express , 5 55 F. 2d 5 42 , 5 45

- 46 ( 5t h Ci r . 1 97 7) )

. As a r e s ul to f t he r ul i ng
r e ga r di ng D e L a Paz , t he j udg m e ntf o rt he Ci t y i s no tf

i nal
. Bec aus e no ne o f t he
s t at ut o r y o rj ur i s pr ude nt i al e xc e pt i o ns t o t hi s g e ne r alr ul e ap pl y he r e , w e do

3 4
no tha ve j ur i s di c t i o n t o c o ns i de rw he t he rt he di s t r i c tc o ur tpr o pe r l y gr an t ed
s um m ar y j udg m e ntt o t he C i t y o n D e Leo n’ s Ti t l e VI c l ai m . W i t ho utj ur i s di c t i o n, w e m u s t d is m is s t h is p o r tio n o f th e a p p e a l. S tan ley v. CIA , 639 F. 2d 1146, 1157 (5 th C ir . U n it B 1 9 8 1 ). III . A F F IR M E D an d R E M A N D E D i n pa rt, D IS M IS S E D i n pa rt.