The opinion
Case: 23-50871 Document: 46-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/08/2024
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 23-50871
____________ FILED
July 8, 2024
Ricardo Garcia, Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Reyes Bermea; Martin Cantu; Cristian Campirano,
Defendants—Appellees.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 2:21-CV-4
______________________________
Before Haynes, Willett, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
Haynes, Circuit Judge: *
Ricardo Garcia claims that Maverick County Sheriff’s Department
Deputies Reyes Bermea and Cristian Campirano, and Corporal Martin Cantu
(collectively, “Defendants”) violated his Fourth Amendment rights. We
AFFIRM.
The incident at issue in this case arose while Defendants were
responding to a call about a suspicious vehicle. After encountering Garcia,
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-50871 Document: 46-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/08/2024
No. 23-50871
who refused to follow orders and showed signs of intoxication, Defendants
pulled him out of his vehicle, arrested him, and searched his vehicle. 1 Garcia,
stating that all charges were dropped, subsequently initiated this pro se suit
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging Defendants (1) unlawfully seized him;
(2) unlawfully arrested him; (3) used excessive force; (4) unlawfully
searched his vehicle; (5) failed to intervene in others’ unconstitutional acts;
and (6) submitted a false probable cause affidavit. The district court
concluded that Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on all claims
and granted their motion for summary judgment. Still proceeding pro se,
Garcia now appeals.
Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, private citizens may sue state and local
officials for violations of their constitutional rights. However, “[q]ualified
immunity shields from liability ‘all but the plainly incompetent or those who
knowingly violate the law.’” Romero v. City of Grapevine, 888 F.3d 170, 176
(5th Cir. 2018) (quoting Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 341 (1986)). To
overcome a qualified immunity defense, a plaintiff must show that (1) “the
official’s conduct violated a constitutional right,” and (2) “the right was
clearly established.” Cunningham v. Castloo, 983 F.3d 185, 190–91 (5th Cir.
2020) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). In reviewing whether
qualified immunity is proper, we may limit our analysis to the “clearly
established” prong if it is dispositive. See Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223,
236–37 (2009).
Here, the district court concluded that Defendants were entitled to
qualified immunity on all of Garcia’s claims because Garcia had not shown a
violation of his constitutional rights.2 We need not address that issue because
_____________________
1
Garcia alleges Cantu participated only in the vehicle search.
2
The district court also construed Garcia’s complaint as asserting several state-
law claims but declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over such claims. Because
2
Case: 23-50871 Document: 46-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/08/2024
No. 23-50871
even if Garcia could show a constitutional violation, his claim would still fail
because he has not shown that “it was clearly established that the Fourth
Amendment prohibited the officer[s’] conduct in the situation [they]
confronted.” See Mullenix v. Luna, 577 U.S. 7, 13 (2015) (per curiam)
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
“[W]e liberally construe the briefs of pro se appellants.” Bourne v.
Gunnels, 921 F.3d 484, 490 (5th Cir. 2019) (citation omitted). However, even
liberally construed, Garcia’s brief does not meet the heavy burden of
establishing that “relevant precedent ‘has placed the constitutional question
beyond debate.’” See Morrow v. Meachum, 917 F.3d 870, 874 (5th Cir. 2019)
(alterations adopted) (quoting Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 741 (2011)).
Garcia instead focuses on the first prong of qualified immunity and makes
only passing references to the fact that Defendants “should have known”
they were committing constitutional violations. He fails to cite cases that
“squarely govern[] the specific facts at issue here.” See Kisela v. Hughes, 584
U.S. 100, 104 (2018) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted). Thus, he has not shown that “the violative nature of particular
conduct is clearly established.” See Mullenix, 577 U.S. at 12 (citation
omitted). Nor has Garcia argued or shown that this is one of the rare cases
in which the constitutional violation is so obvious that analogous case law is
not needed. See Brosseau v. Haugen, 543 U.S. 194, 199 (2004) (citing Hope
v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 738 (2002)).
Accordingly, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, and we
AFFIRM the judgment of the district court. 3
_____________________
Garcia’s brief does not mention his state claims or supplemental jurisdiction, we need not
address the issue here.
3
Judge Willett concurs in the judgment only, stating the following: I would
not skip to qualified immunity’s simpler second prong at the expense of resolving the
3
Case: 23-50871 Document: 46-1 Page: 4 Date Filed: 07/08/2024
_____________________
constitutional inquiry on prong one, a maneuver that, at least in published cases,
perpetuates one of qualified immunity’s core hypocrisies: that plaintiffs must cite
precedent “clearly establishing” the law even as courts refuse to make any. See Reed v.
Taylor, 923 F.3d 411, 418 n.48 (5th Cir. 2019) (Willett, J.); Zadeh v. Robinson, 902 F.3d 483,
498–99 (5th Cir. 2018) (Willett, J., concurring dubitante), opinion withdrawn on reh’g, 928
F.3d 457 (5th Cir. 2019); Lombardo v. City of St. Louis, Mo., 143 S. Ct. 2419, 2421 (2023)
(Sotomayor, J., dissenting from the denial of certiorari) (citing Zadeh, 902 F.3d at 499
(Willett, J., concurring dubitante)). Although a prong-one holding in this unpublished case
would not clearly establish the law, see Marks v. Hudson, 933 F.3d 481, 486 (5th Cir. 2019),
Judge Willett would nonetheless affirm the district court’s judgment on Garcia’s
failure to show a constitutional violation.