Court Opinion

ID: 9410900
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-25 00:00:46.650657+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:21:00.855639
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-30006         Document: 00516831668                 Page: 1       Date Filed: 07/24/2023

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

                                                                                            FILED
                                                                                        July 24, 2023
                                         No. 23-30006
                                       Summary Calendar                                Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                            Clerk

   Bruce Washington, Individually,

                                                                          Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                                versus

   Alexander Thomas, in his individual capacity,

                                                                         Defendant—Appellee.

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Eastern District of Louisiana
                                USDC No. 2:22-CV-632

   Before Stewart, Dennis, and Willett, Circuit Judges.
         Per Curiam: *
         Appellant Alexander Thomas moved for summary judgment, seeking
   dismissal of Appellee Bruce Washington’s claim that Thomas violated
   Washington’s Fourth Amendment rights during a traffic stop. The district
   court denied the motion, finding a genuine dispute of material fact as to
   whether Thomas had reasonable suspicion or voluntary consent to search

         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-30006      Document: 00516831668          Page: 2    Date Filed: 07/24/2023

                                    No. 23-30006

   Washington. Because Thomas challenges the genuineness of the disputed
   facts, we DISMISS this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
          This court has “limited jurisdiction over an interlocutory appeal of a
   denial of summary judgment based upon qualified immunity.” Morris v.
   Leblanc, 674 F. App’x 374, 377 (5th Cir. 2016). “In deciding an interlocutory
   appeal of a denial of qualified immunity, we can review the materiality of any
   factual disputes, but not their genuineness.” Wagner v. Bay City, 227 F.3d 316,
   320 (5th Cir. 2000); accord Craig v. Martin, 49 F.4th 404, 408–09 (5th Cir.
   2022). Where, as here, an officer’s qualified immunity depends on the
   resolution of genuine factual disputes, we cannot hear his appeal from the
   denial of summary judgment.
          Thomas claims to challenge the materiality of those facts, arguing that
   there can be no disputed facts because the entire incident was captured on
   video. Yet Thomas does not argue that, taking Washington’s allegations as
   true, there was no constitutional violation. Reyes v. City of Richmond, 287 F.3d
   346, 351 (5th Cir.2002) (“An officer challenges materiality when he contends
   that, ‘taking all the plaintiffs’ factual allegations as true, no violation of a
   clearly established right was shown.’”) (internal citation removed). Instead,
   Thomas challenges the genuineness of the factual disputes in this case by
   arguing that the video footage supports his version of events. Under our case
   law, an officer’s argument that no factual disputes exist is a challenge to
   “genuineness” over which we do not have jurisdiction. See Morris v. Leblanc,
   674 Fed. Appx. 374, 378 (5th Cir. 2016) (finding that an officer’s argument
   that there was no factual dispute was a challenge to the “genuineness of the
   factual dispute”); Durant v. Brooks, 826 Fed. Appx. 331, 335 (5th Cir. 2020)
   (dismissing claim on appeal for lack of jurisdiction where officer “effectively
   challenge[d] the ‘genuineness’ of the factual disputes underlying [the district
   court’s] findings[.]”).

                                          2
Case: 23-30006    Document: 00516831668          Page: 3   Date Filed: 07/24/2023

                                  No. 23-30006

         Because Thomas challenges the genuineness of the factual disputes
   forming the basis of the district court’s denial of summary judgment, this
   court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is
   DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

                                       3