# Castillo v. City of Weslaco

> Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · January 12, 2006 · 162 F. App'x 357

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/40513

## Case

- **Full name:** Baudelio CASTILLO, Et Al, Plaintiffs, Baudelio Castillo; Richard Acevedo, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. CITY OF WESLACO; Et Al, Defendants, Frank Castellanos, City Manager; J.D. Martinez, Police Chief; And Enrique Gonzalez, Assistant Police Chief, Defendants-Appellants
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
- **Decided:** January 12, 2006
- **Citations:** 162 F. App'x 357
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Reavley, Davis, Wiener
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/40513

## Opinion text

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS F I L E D
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT January 12, 2006
_____________________ Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-40037
____________________

BAUDELIO CASTILLO, ET AL,

Plaintiffs,

BAUDELIO CASTILLO; RICHARD ACEVEDO,

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v.

CITY OF WESLACO; ET AL,

Defendants,

FRANK CASTELLANOS, City Manager; J.D. MARTINEZ, Police
Chief; and ENRIQUE GONZALEZ, Assistant Police Chief,

Defendants-Appellants.

__________________

Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Southern District of Texas
(01-CV-99)
__________________

Before REAVLEY, DAVIS and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Plaintiff Police Officers Castillo, Acevedo, Meza,

and Kennedy initiated this suit against the City of Weslaco

*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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
and Defendant-Appellants City Manager Castellanos, Police

Chief Martinez, and Assistant Police Chief Gonzalez,

asserting claims under 48 U.S.C. § 1983 for allegedly

retaliating against plaintiffs based on union activism.

Finding that the Officers sufficiently alleged a violation

of clearly established federal law, the district court

denied the Appellants' motion for summary judgment asserting

qualified immunity and the Appellants appealed.

In the City Officials’ first appeal to this Court, we

found that the district court had not “highlight[ed]

evidence that, if interpreted in the light most favorable to

the plaintiffs, identifies conduct by the defendant that

violated clearly established law.” Castillo v. City of

Weslaco, 369 F.3d 504, 506 (5th Cir.2004). We then remanded

the case to the district court with directions to “provide a

supplemental order setting forth the factual scenario that

it assumed in construing the summary judgment evidence in

the light most favorable to the Officers and therefore

denying the Appellants’ motion for summary judgment based on

qualified immunity.” Id. at 507.

In a supplemental order, the district court decided

that, upon further review, it would modify in part its order

and grant the Appellants’ summary judgment motion with

2
respect to two of the Officers, Juan Meza and Brent Kennedy.

The same panel of this Court then vacated the district

court's denial of summary judgment and remanded to the

district court so that it could enter an order consistent

with the findings in its supplemental order. Castillo v.

City of Weslaco, 388 F.3d 464, 465. The district court did

so, and in an order supported by a full discussion of the

record, granted Appellants’ motion for summary judgment

based on qualified immunity with respect to Officers Meza

and Kennedy, but denied the motion with respect to Officers

Castillo and Acevedo, concluding that the summary judgment

record reflected genuine issues of material fact.

Appellants appeal this denial.

After considering the parties’ briefs, oral arguments,

and pertinent portions of the record, we agree with the

district court's well-supported order. We agree with the

district court that Appellees have demonstrated that their

right to participate in union activities was clearly

established. We also agree with the district court that

issues of fact are presented regarding whether Appellees

suffered adverse personnel action at the hands of the

Defendants because of their association with and advocacy

for a union competing for recognition as the bargaining

3
agent of the police department. We therefore DISMISS the

appeal.

DISMISSED.

4

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/40513. Public record. Not legal advice.