Court Opinion

ID: 9951422
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-16 00:00:45.604406+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:40:08.573982
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-40461           Document: 45-1         Page: 1      Date Filed: 03/15/2024

          United States Court of Appeals
               for the Fifth Circuit                                        United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                     Fifth Circuit

                                  ____________                                     FILED
                                                                             March 15, 2024
                                   No. 23-40461                               Lyle W. Cayce
                                 Summary Calendar                                  Clerk
                                 ____________

Marin Lopez; Pedro Bermea; Trinidad Lopez; Arturo
Menchaca; Eladio Bermudez; Javier Garcia; Robert
Guerra; Luis Carlos Gonzalez; Epigmenio “TJ”
Gonzalez; Juan Garcia, Jr.; Julio Eguia; Aaron Garcia,

                                                                 Plaintiffs—Appellees,

                                         versus

Eduardo Ramirez; Noe Castillo; Basilio D. Villareal,
Jr.; Roel Gonzalez,

                                          Defendants—Appellants.
                  ______________________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Southern District of Texas
                            USDC No. 7:20-CV-33
                  ______________________________

Before Davis, Willett, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
      Defendants-Appellants, four current or former members of the Rio
Grande City Consolidated Independent School District school board (the

      _____________________
      *
          This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
 Case: 23-40461             Document: 45-1            Page: 2   Date Filed: 03/15/2024

                                             No. 23-40461

“Board Members”), appeal a district court’s order denying their motion to
dismiss based on legislative or qualified immunity. In order to effectively
review the district court’s order, we VACATE and REMAND.
        Twelve employees of the Rio Grande City Consolidated Independent
School District sued the school district and Board Members under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983, alleging retaliation for First Amendment activities. After Plaintiffs
amended their complaint twice, Defendants moved to dismiss the operative
complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), asserting
legislative immunity or, in the alternative, qualified immunity. The district
court summarily denied Defendants’ motion without prejudice in a minute-
entry order. The Board Members filed an interlocutory appeal to this Court.
        In 2022, this Court vacated the district court’s order and remanded
the case “to allow the district court to reassess Board Members’ motion on
a plaintiff-by-plaintiff, defendant-by-defendant basis and assign reasons for
its subsequent decision.” 1 The Court specifically explained that because the
district court provided no analysis of its decision, it was “not sufficiently
reasoned for this court to review on appeal.” 2
        On remand, the district court granted Plaintiffs’ motion to file a third
amended complaint. Once again, Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule
12(b)(6) on the same grounds of legislative or qualified immunity. On July
27, 2023, in almost an identically worded minute-entry order, the district
court again denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss without any explanation of
its reasoning. The Board Members timely filed this interlocutory appeal.

        _____________________
        1
          Lopez v. Ramirez, No. 21-40235, 2022 WL 3230442, at *2 (5th Cir. Aug. 10, 2022)
(per curiam) (unpublished).
        2
            Id. at *1 (citations omitted).

                                                  2
 Case: 23-40461          Document: 45-1          Page: 3       Date Filed: 03/15/2024

                                       No. 23-40461

        “Under the collateral order doctrine, we have jurisdiction to review
orders denying qualified immunity.” 3 As we noted in our prior opinion, “‘to
overcome [an] immunity [defense],’ a plaintiff ‘must plead specific facts that
both allow the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is
liable for the harm he has alleged and that defeat [the] immunity defense with
equal specificity.” 4 Relatedly, in analyzing a qualified immunity defense,
courts must “examine each officer’s actions independently to determine
whether he is entitled to qualified immunity.” 5 Accordingly, a district court
errs by failing to consider each officer’s assertion of qualified immunity
individually and by instead considering the officers’ actions together. 6
        Here, for the second time, the district court not only provided no
individualized analysis as to each officer’s entitlement to either legislative or
qualified immunity, it provided no analysis period. The district court’s lack
of any explanation about the basis for its denial of Defendants’ motion to
dismiss precludes effective appellate review in this case. 7 This is particularly

        _____________________
        3
          Carswell v. Camp, 54 F.4th 307, 310 (5th Cir. 2022) (citations omitted), cert.
denied, 144 S. Ct. 73 (2023) (mem).
        4
         Lopez, 2022 WL 3230442, at *1 (quoting Backe v. LeBlanc, 691 F.3d 645, 648 (5th
Cir. 2012)).
        5
          Solis v. Serrett, 31 F.4th 975, 981 (5th Cir. 2022) (citing Meadours v. Ermel, 483
F.3d 417, 421–22 (5th Cir. 2007)).
        6
          See Meadours, 483 F.3d at 421–22 (“The district court erred in considering the
officers’ actions together, and we instruct the court to consider the officers[’] actions
separately on remand.”).
        7
          See McIncrow v. Harris Cnty., 878 F.2d 835, 836 (5th Cir. 1989) (emphasizing that
a district court’s failure to provide reasons in granting a motion for summary judgment
provides “little opportunity for effective review”); Davis v. Bayless, 70 F.3d 367, 376 (5th
Cir. 1995) (“While rule 12 does not require that the district court enter findings of fact or
conclusions of law when deciding a motion to dismiss, we have required that the district
court explain its reasons in sufficient detail to allow this Court to determine whether the
district court correctly applied the proper legal rule.” (citation omitted)).

                                             3
 Case: 23-40461          Document: 45-1         Page: 4       Date Filed: 03/15/2024

                                      No. 23-40461

true given the number of parties and the need for an individualized analysis
as to each officer’s entitlement to immunity. In these situations, this Court
has “not hesitated to remand the case for an illumination of the court’s
analysis through some formal or informal statement of reasons.” 8
        Accordingly, we VACATE the district court’s order denying
Defendants’ motion to dismiss, and REMAND the case to permit the
district court to evaluate Defendants’ motion to dismiss on a plaintiff-by-
plaintiff, defendant-by-defendant basis, and to provide reasons for its
judgment.

        _____________________
        8
           See Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Brown, 86 F. App’x 718, 719 (5th Cir. 2004) (per
curiam) (unpublished) (remanding to the district court for a second time after the district
court twice granted summary judgment without providing any explanation for its orders
(citation omitted)); Baker v. TDCJ-CID, 774 F. App’x 198, 199–200 (5th Cir. 2019) (per
curiam) (unpublished) (remanding a case to district court because the court failed to
provide reasons for granting summary judgment in a case involving multiple claims and
immunity defenses). Unpublished opinions issued on or after January 1, 1996, are not
binding precedent, but they may be persuasive authority. Ballard v. Burton, 444 F.3d 391,
401 n.7 (5th Cir. 2006); 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

                                            4