Opinion ID: 48713
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Separate Consideration of Each Officer's Actions

Text: 13 As a threshold matter, the officers argue that in determining the applicability of qualified immunity we should consider the conduct of each officer independently. The district court, however, analyzed the officers' actions collectively, because it found they acted in unison. Id. at . In reaching that result the district court relied on Jacobs v. West Feliciana Sheriff's Department, 228 F.3d 388, 395 (5th Cir. 2000). In Jacobs, we noted that the defendants did not act in unison, and held that, [a]ccordingly ... we examine each individual defendant's entitlement to qualified immunity separately. 228 F.3d at 395. Relying on this statement, the district court fashioned a rule that if defendants act in unison, their conduct should be considered collectively. 14 The district court's finding that the officers acted in unison is a finding of fact that we cannot review at this stage. See Flores v. City of Palacios, 381 F.3d 391, 394 (5th Cir.2004). But even accepting that factual finding, we hold that the district court erred in considering the officers' actions collectively. 15 The district court's decision to consider the officers' actions collectively because it found they acted in unison extends the holding of Jacobs beyond what prudence and case law allows. See Stewart v. Murphy, 174 F.3d 530, 537 (5th Cir.1999) (holding that each defendant's actions in a § 1983 case must be considered individually). Further, we have consistently examined the actions of defendants individually in the qualified immunity context. See Hernandez v. Tex. Dep't of Protective & Regulatory Servs., 380 F.3d 872, 883-84 (5th Cir.2004) (examining the culpability of each defendant individually to determine if they deprived the plaintiff of a constitutional right); see also Atteberry v. Nocona Gen. Hosp., 430 F.3d 245, 253 (5th Cir. 2005) (same); see also Tarver v. City of Edna, 410 F.3d 745, 752-54 (5th Cir.2005) (examining the conduct of two officers independently and finding that one was entitled to qualified immunity while the other was not). 16 Additionally, we have found no sound reason to extend Jacobs. The relevant part of Jacobs itself cites only the decision in Stewart, and that case makes only the blanket statement that each defendant's subjective . . . [actions] must be examined separately and does not contemplate an exception for defendants acting in unison. Stewart, 174 F.3d at 537. 3 17 The district court erred in considering the officers' actions together, and we instruct the court to consider the officers actions separately on remand. 4