The opinion
Case: 25-20457 Document: 58-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/17/2026
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
____________
FILED
June 17, 2026
No. 25-20457
____________ Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Sarah Borchgrevink, Solely in her capacity as Independent
Administrator of the Estate of Matthew Ryan Shelton,
Deceased; Marianna Ruth Thomson, Statutory Wrongful
Death Beneficiary of Matthew Ryan Shelton, Deceased,
Plaintiffs—Appellees,
versus
Sheriff Ed Gonzalez,
Defendant—Appellant.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:23-CV-3198
______________________________
Before King, Higginson, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Matthew Shelton, a Type-1 diabetic and pretrial detainee at Harris
County Jail, died an agonizing death from diabetic ketoacidosis after he was
allegedly not monitored or given insulin for four days. Plaintiffs–Appellees
Sarah Borchgrevink and Marianna Ruth Thompson sued, inter alia,
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 25-20457 Document: 58-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/17/2026
No. 25-20457
Defendant–Appellant Sheriff Ed Gonzalez in his individual capacity under
42 U.S.C. § 1983 for Fourteenth Amendment violations, alleging (in their
135-page operative complaint) that Gonzalez’s policies, practices, and
customs in the jail, as well as his failure to train and supervise the jail officers,
resulted in Shelton’s death. Gonzalez moved to dismiss, claiming qualified
immunity, which the district court denied in its thorough order. Gonzalez
timely appealed.
As an initial matter, we address Appellees’ challenge to our
jurisdiction. Under the collateral order doctrine, we have jurisdiction over
interlocutory appeals from denials of qualified immunity on a motion to
dismiss. Ramirez v. Escaja, 921 F.3d 497, 500 (5th Cir. 2019). But we “may
not ‘review the simple denial of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a
claim.’” Id. at 499 (quoting Brown v. Miller, 519 F.3d 231, 238 (5th Cir.
2008)). In other words, we “may review ‘whether the facts pleaded
establish’ ‘a violation of clearly-established law,’” id. at 501 (quoting Ashcroft
v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 673 (2009)), but we may not “question the credibility
of the facts pleaded,” id. Here, Appellees argue that we lack jurisdiction over
Gonzalez’s appeal because “every argument of [] Gonzalez requires the
Court to entirely disregard [Appellees’] operative complaint[.]”Gonzalez
rebuts that he “does not dispute the factual allegations but rather contends
that the facts, even if accepted as true, fail to establish a violation of clearly
established law.” We agree with Gonzalez; his brief does not contradict the
facts alleged but rather claims that the facts alleged are insufficient to show
he violated a clearly established constitutional right. Accordingly, have
jurisdiction over Gonzalez’s appeal.
Moving to the merits, our precedent confirms that Appellees’ case
may proceed against Sheriff Gonzalez. See Colle v. Brazos Cnty., 981 F.2d 237,
246 (5th Cir. 1993), abrogated on other grounds by Leatherman v. Tarrant Cnty.
2
Case: 25-20457 Document: 58-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/17/2026
No. 25-20457
Narc. Intel. & Coord. Unit, 507 U.S. 163, 165 (1993). We thus find no error in
the district court’s denial of qualified immunity at this stage.
AFFIRMED.
3