Court Opinion

ID: 9881720
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-03 18:00:41.446229+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:11.346360
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-50836        Document: 00516917479             Page: 1      Date Filed: 10/03/2023

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

                                     ____________                                     FILED
                                                                                October 3, 2023
                                      No. 22-50836                               Lyle W. Cayce
                                     ____________                                     Clerk

   Fernando Morales, Individually and on behalf of his minor children,
   F.M. and D.M.; Zerenia Cardoza, in her Individual Capacity,

                                                                    Plaintiffs—Appellees,

                                            versus

   Ruben Cardenas,

                                              Defendant—Appellant.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Western District of Texas
                               USDC No. 3:19-CV-217
                     ______________________________

   Before Stewart, Dennis, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         This appeal arises out of an incident involving a physical altercation
   between Fernando Morales and Enrique Carrillo (“E. Carrillo”), an off-duty
   El Paso police officer, and his son, Aaron Carrillo (“A. Carrillo”). Ruben
   Cardenas, a sergeant in the El Paso Police Department (“EPPD”), arrived at
   the scene to investigate. Morales and his wife, Zerenia Cardoza, who

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-50836      Document: 00516917479          Page: 2   Date Filed: 10/03/2023

                                    No. 22-50836

   witnessed the altercation, sued Cardenas and the Carrillos under 42 U.S.C.
   § 1983 alleging that they conspired to frame Morales for assault in violation
   of his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights. The district court denied
   Cardenas’s motion for summary judgment on the basis of qualified
   immunity. Cardenas timely filed this interlocutory appeal. Because we lack
   appellate jurisdiction to consider the arguments Cardenas raises, we dismiss
   his appeal.
                 I. Factual and Procedural History
          On July 1, 2017, Morales—accompanied by his wife, Cardoza; their
   two minor children; his cousin, Yesenia Jaquez; Jaquez’s son; and Sonia
   Baca, a family friend—drove through the parking lot of an El Paso Walmart
   after leaving a nearby water park. While driving, Morales nearly collided with
   a car driven by E. Carrillo, an off-duty EPPD officer, who was accompanied
   by his adult son A. Carrillo. Morales alleges that after exiting his vehicle he
   approached the Carrillos’ vehicle and, without any physical provocation, A.
   Carrillo exited his vehicle, grabbed Morales from behind, placed him in a
   chokehold, pulled him to the ground, and continued to choke him. According
   to Morales, as he struggled against the chokehold, E. Carrillo began punching
   his head and body.
          Pete Herrera, another off-duty EPPD officer, witnessed the
   altercation and called 911. During the 911 call, Herrera recognized E. Carrillo
   and decided to approach the fight and intervene. Of the EPPD officers
   dispatched to the scene, Officer Julio Guereca arrived first to the scene but
   did not recognize E. Carrillo. Guereca spoke to both E. Carrillo and Morales,
   each of whom blamed the other for starting the fight. Thereafter, Cardenas
   arrived at the scene and took over the investigation. According to Morales,
   upon his arrival, Cardenas greeted E. Carrillo enthusiastically by “hugging,
   laughing, talking and dancing,” and the two acted “like best friends meeting

                                         2
Case: 22-50836      Document: 00516917479          Page: 3    Date Filed: 10/03/2023

                                    No. 22-50836

   at a class reunion.” Morales also saw A. Carrillo wrap his arms around
   Cardenas’s throat, demonstrating the chokehold he had earlier performed on
   Morales. Morales believed that the gestures were mockingly portrayed as
   several officers laughed at the reenactment.
          Next, Guereca interviewed Cardoza and Jaquez and took notes about
   the incident in a small notebook. While Guereca spoke with Cardoza and
   Jaquez, Cardenas took Guereca aside. At the end of his conversation with
   Cardenas, Guereca tore out the top few pages of the small notebook where
   he had been writing and crumpled them in his hand. Neither Cardoza nor
   Jaquez saw what happened to the crumpled pages. After speaking with the
   Carrillos, Herrera, and other witnesses, Cardenas spoke to Morales.
   Hereafter, Cardenas informed Morales that he had determined that Morales
   was the aggressor in the fight with the Carrillos. He handcuffed Morales and
   put him in the back of Officer Gabriel Lechuga’s cruiser. Morales, who had a
   significant cut on his chin, asked Cardenas if he could receive medical aid but
   Cardenas told the arriving Emergency Medical Services that the EPPD did
   not need assistance.
          Still at the scene and after questioning Morales, Cardenas spoke to
   Cardoza and Jaquez. According to Jaquez, in response to her numerous
   requests for medical aid on behalf of Morales, Cardenas threatened to arrest
   her for public intoxication. After conducting a background check on both
   Cardoza and Jaquez, Cardenas discovered nine outstanding arrest warrants
   for traffic violations attributed to Cardoza. Cardenas then cautioned Cardoza
   that if she refused to cooperate in the investigation, he would arrest her for
   the traffic violations. Cardoza replied that since Cardenas refused to listen to
   her side of the story, she was done talking to him. In response, Cardenas
   arrested her under the outstanding warrants and refused her pleas to change
   out of her swimming suit before leaving for the police station.

                                          3
Case: 22-50836      Document: 00516917479            Page: 4    Date Filed: 10/03/2023

                                      No. 22-50836

          Overall, the investigation lasted several hours. After Morales was
   arrested for assault, Lechuga took him to a nearby Las Palmas medical facility
   where he was treated for a fractured eye socket, received four stitches on his
   chin, and with his consent, had blood drawn, which revealed blood alcohol
   levels just below the presumptive intoxication range. While awaiting trial on
   his assault charge, Morales was indicted for the felony charge of driving
   minor children while intoxicated on the day of the altercation. That felony
   indictment was later dismissed for insufficient evidence. A jury subsequently
   found Morales not guilty of assault.
          Morales filed this § 1983 action against the Carrillos and Cardenas,
   alleging that they violated his due process rights by deliberately conspiring to
   frame and bring false charges against him. The district court denied
   Cardenas’s motion for summary judgment on the basis of qualified
   immunity. Cardenas filed this interlocutory appeal. Because material factual
   disputes exist concerning qualified immunity, we dismiss for lack of appellate
   jurisdiction.
                           II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
          “The denial of a motion for summary judgment based on qualified
   immunity is immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine to the
   extent that it turns on an issue of law.” Flores v. City of Palacios, 381 F.3d 391,
   393 (5th Cir. 2004) (internal quotation omitted); see also Winfrey v. Pikett, 872
   F.3d 640, 643 (5th Cir. 2017) (“The district court’s denial of summary
   judgment is immediately appealable to the extent it turns on an issue of law.”
   (internal quotation omitted)). Where the district court determines “that
   genuine issues of material fact preclude a determination of qualified
   immunity, we have jurisdiction only to address the legal question of whether
   the genuinely disputed factual issues are material for the purposes of
   summary judgment.” Lytle v. Bexar Cnty., 560 F.3d 404, 408 (5th Cir. 2009).

                                           4
Case: 22-50836      Document: 00516917479          Page: 5    Date Filed: 10/03/2023

                                    No. 22-50836

   We have no jurisdiction to consider the correctness of the plaintiff’s version
   of the facts and cannot review the district court’s factual determination that
   a genuine factual dispute exists. See Michalik v. Hermann, 422 F.3d 252, 257
   (5th Cir. 2005) (“We have no jurisdiction to hear an interlocutory appeal . . .
   when a district court’s denial of qualified immunity rests on the basis that
   genuine issues of material fact exist.”). “Within this limited appellate
   jurisdiction,” we review a “denial of a motion for summary judgment on the
   basis of qualified immunity in a § 1983 suit de novo.” Winfrey, 872 F.3d at 644
   (internal quotation omitted).
                                III. DISCUSSION
          Our analysis begins and ends by addressing whether we have appellate
   jurisdiction over Cardenas’s appeal. We hold that we lack jurisdiction over
   his appeal because it “boils down to a challenge of the genuineness, not the
   materiality, of factual disputes.” Id. On appeal, Cardenas avers that he is
   entitled to summary judgment because the evidence the district court
   recounted was insufficient to support an inference that he entered into an
   agreement to frame Morales. Morales, on the other hand, contends that we
   lack jurisdiction to hear this appeal because Cardenas’s arguments merely
   rest on factual disputes as opposed to addressing the legal issue of whether
   the district court erred as a matter of law. Morales has the better argument.
          An order that resolves a fact-related dispute of the sufficiency of
   evidence is not immediately appealable and must await final judgment to be
   appealed. See Cantu v. Rocha, 77 F.3d 795, 802 (5th Cir. 1996). In the instant
   case, the district court identified many material facts as genuinely disputed.
   Specifically, the parties dispute: (1) which party was the initial instigator of
   the altercation, (2) whether Cardenas decided to take the Carrillos’ side
   shortly after arriving on the scene or only after conducting a thorough
   investigation, (3) whether Cardenas directed Guereca to destroy his notes as

                                          5
Case: 22-50836      Document: 00516917479           Page: 6     Date Filed: 10/03/2023

                                     No. 22-50836

   part of a conspiracy, and (4) whether Cardenas’s tactics while interviewing
   Morales’s family members and witnesses—Cardoza and Jaquez—are
   probative of his participation in a conspiracy. Cardenas’s argument hinges on
   the factual disputes of this case being resolved in his favor. Notably, he does
   not assert that, taking all of Morales’s factual allegations as true, no violation
   of a clearly established law was shown. Rather, Cardenas argues that he is
   entitled to summary judgment because the evidence the district court cited
   does not permit an inference that he entered into a conspiracy with the
   Carrillos to deprive Morales of his civil rights. But Cardenas’s arguments
   only challenge the genuineness of the factual dispute.
          The district court denied Cardenas’s motion for summary judgment
   as to false charges because “a reasonable jury could find that the Carrillo
   Defendants were the initial aggressors and that [E.] Carrillo made false
   statements to the police in order to have Morales arrested and convicted of
   assault.” We agree. Consequently, we lack jurisdiction to consider
   Cardenas’s arguments regarding the genuineness of the district court’s
   factual determinations. Winfrey, 872 F.3d at 644.
                                IV. Conclusion
          For the foregoing reasons, we DISMISS the appeal for lack of
   jurisdiction.

                                           6