Opinion ID: 16128
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: Under Nerren v. Livingston Police Dept., we have “interlocutory jurisdiction to ‘take, as given, the facts that the district court assumed when it denied summary judgment’ and determine whether these facts state a claim under clearly established law.” 86 F.3d 469, 472 (5th Cir. 1996) (quoting Johnson v. Jones, 115 S.Ct. 2151, 2159 (1995)). This interlocutory jurisdiction applies to both the federal and state law claims. See Cantu v. Rocha, 77 F.3d 795, 804 (5th Cir. 1996) (stating that “orders premised on the denial of qualified immunity under Texas state law are appealable in federal court to the same extent as 4 district court orders based on the denial of federal law immunity”). The standard of review is de novo. See Johnston v. City of Houston, 14 F.3d 1056, 1059 (5th Cir. 1994) (citing Mozeke v. International Paper Co., 856 F.2d 722, 724 (5th Cir. 1988)). Considering the facts that the district court assumed, we now consider each of the causes of action to determine which, if any, of the Plaintiffs’ claims state a claim under clearly established law. For those that do we then consider whether issues of fact are present.