The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_______________
No. 97-30515
_______________
LIONELL J. DAVIS,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
VERSUS
C.M. LENSING; M. CURTIS, CSO II,
Defendants;
C.M. LENSING,
Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Louisiana
(95-CV-1846)
_________________________
March 9, 1998
Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, SMITH and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Lionell Davis, a state prisoner, filed suit under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 against Warden C. Martin Lensing and “M. Curtis,”1 alleging
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion
should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
1
The prison was unable to identify the “M. Curtis” named in the complaint;
he was not served and the district court dismissed him from the suit.
that he was denied a magazine, The Angolite, to which he
subscribed, and that the prison informed him any copies of the
magazine received while he was in extended lockdown would be
discarded. After unsuccessfully protesting the decision within the
prison system, he filed suit requesting declaratory and injunctive
relief. He claims that Hunt Institutional Policy No. 100-C2, which
prohibits inmates in disciplinary housing from receiving magazines
and newspapers, violates the First Amendment.
Lensing filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that
Davis fails to allege a constitutional violation and that, even if
he does allege a violation, qualified immunity protects Lensing
from damages. Davis also requested summary judgment.
The magistrate judge denied both motions, suggesting that fact
issues exist regarding both the violation of Davis’s First
Amendment rights and the application of qualified immunity.
Lensing pursued an immediate appeal under the collateral-order
doctrine. See Coleman v. Houston Indep. Sch. Dist., 113 F.3d 528,
531 (5th Cir. 1997). Although orders denying qualified immunity
are immediately reviewable only for errors of law, the existence of
a genuine issue of material fact does not preclude review if the
district court’s order determines a question of law. Id.
The magistrate judge’s refusal to grant the summary judgment
motion did determine a question of law: It determined the
existence of a clearly established federal or constitutional right
2
of which a reasonable person would have known. If no such right
existed, qualified immunity would protect Lensing from damages as
a matter of law. See Hart v. O’Brien, 127 F.3d 424, 441-42 (5th
Cir. 1997). Because the magistrate judge decided an issue of law
in addition to finding the existence of a genuine issue of material
fact, we may review his decision on Lensing’s claim of qualified
immunity.
Davis has not requested monetary damages, but only injunctive
relief. The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government
officials from money damages, not suits for injunctive or
declaratory relief. Chrissy F. by Medley v. Mississippi Dep’t of
Public Welfare, 925 F.2d 844, 849 (5th Cir. 1991). Qualified
immunity is therefore irrelevant to the suit, which must proceed if
the magistrate judge finds that Davis has a right to his magazines
and that a genuine issue of material fact exists regarding the
prison’s policy or Lensing’s application of it.
For this reason, we AFFIRM the denial of summary judgment.
This matter is REMANDED for further proceedings.
3