Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS: The defendants-appellants, Frank Castellanos, J.D. Martinez, and Enrique Gonzalez, bring this interlocutory appeal from the district court’s denial of their summary judgment motion asserting qualified immunity against the �1983 claims brought by the plaintiffs-appellees, Baudelio Castillo, Juan Meza, Richard Acevedo and Brent Kennedy (collectively “the Officers”). HOLDING: Remanded. Qualified immunity is appropriate if “the defendant’s actions were”objectively reasonable’ with reference to”clearly established law’ at the time of the conduct in question.” Petta v. Rivera, 133 F.3d 330 (5th Cir.1998); Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818, 102 S. Ct. 2727 (1982). The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that the second step of the Harlow test is different at the summary judgment stage than it is when the defendant asserts qualified immunity after the initial pleadings. “At the earlier stage, it is the defendant’s conduct as alleged in the complaint that is scrutinized . . . .” Behrens v. Pelletier, 516 U.S. 299 (1996). On summary judgment, “the plaintiff can no longer rest on the pleadings” and the court must look “to the evidence before it (in the light most favorable to the plaintiff) in conducting the Harlow inquiry.” Consequently, the court must highlight evidence that, if interpreted in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, identifies conduct by the defendant that violated clearly established law. By outlining this factual scenario the court does not make a determination that the alleged conduct occurred. Rather, it concludes that there is evidence in the record that, when interpreted in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, establishes conduct by the defendant that violated clearly established law. In cases where the district court failed to outline the relevant factual scenario and the evidence in the record establishing the relevant conduct, the Supreme Court has authorized the court of appeals to undertake a cumbersome review of the record to determine what facts the district court, in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, likely assumed. This court has determined that there is another option in these situations. In certain cases, rather than combing through the record ourselves and concluding what factual scenario the district court likely assumed in applying the Harlow test, the court remands to the district court so that it can outline the factual scenario it assumed in making its decision. Although the court is not required to make such a remand, in some cases it may provide a more efficient alternative. In this case, the district court did not outline the factual scenario it assumed in construing the summary judgment evidence in the light most favorable to the officers. In fact, it appears that it rested its ruling solely on the allegations made by the officers in their third amended complaint. This would be improper in light of the Supreme Court’s instructions in Behrens. Considering it is not clear that the district court assumed a factual scenario supported by summary judgment evidence in applying the Harlow test, and if it did, what that factual scenario is, the more efficient alternative in this case is to remand to the district court for it to outline the factual scenario it assumed in making its decision. OPINION: Per curiam.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.