The opinion
Case: 25-10979 Document: 75-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/10/2026
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
____________ FILED
June 10, 2026
No. 25-10979 Lyle W. Cayce
____________ Clerk
Mary Dawes, Individually and the Administrator of the Estate of
Decedent Genevive A. Dawes; Alfredo Saucedo; Virgilio
Rosales,
Plaintiffs—Appellants,
versus
City of Dallas,
Defendant—Appellee.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:17-CV-1424
______________________________
Before King, Higginson, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Genevive Dawes and Virgilio Rosales were sleeping in their van in a
Dallas apartment complex parking lot when six Dallas Police Department
officers surrounded the vehicle in response to a suspicious-vehicle call.
Awakened by lights, sirens, and shouted commands in the early morning
hours, Dawes reversed slowly and collided with a police cruiser. Officers
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 25-10979 Document: 75-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/10/2026
No. 25-10979
Christopher Hess and Jason Kimpel ultimately fired thirteen rounds through
the passenger window, killing Dawes and injuring Rosales. Rosales, Dawes’s
estate, and Dawes and Rosales’s children sued the City of Dallas for failure
to train under Monell 1 and the officers for excessive force under the Fourth
Amendment. Both claims were brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
A prior panel of our court affirmed the district court’s grant of
qualified immunity to the individual officers on the ground that the law was
not clearly established. Dawes v. City of Dallas, No. 22-10876, 2024 WL
2268529, at *1 (5th Cir. May 20, 2024) (per curiam). The panel remanded
the Monell failure-to-train claim against the City for further proceedings. Id.
at *4.
On remand, the district court entered summary judgment for the City
based on Bustillos v. El Paso County Hospital District, 891 F.3d 214, 222 (5th
Cir. 2018), reasoning that plaintiffs could not establish deliberate
indifference—and thus could not sustain their failure-to-train claim—absent
clearly established law. 2
Bustillos compels affirmance, and we are bound by that decision under
our rule of orderliness. Sprong v. Fid. Nat’l Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 787 F.3d
296, 305 (5th Cir. 2015).
AFFIRMED.
_____________________
1
Monell v. City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978).
2
The district court also found no underlying constitutional violation. We do not
address that issue.
2