# Eastwood v. Cook

> Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · May 9, 1996 · 85 F.3d 625

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9304

## Case

- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
- **Decided:** May 9, 1996
- **Citations:** 85 F.3d 625; 1996 WL 255321
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **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/9304

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-10281
Summary Calendar

WILLIAM L. EASTWOOD,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JERRY D. COOK; JEFF GORE,

Defendants-Appellants,

and

TOMMY BUFFINGTON; JACK SCHULTZ;
HUNT COUNTY TEXAS; CITY OF WEST TAWAKONI,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas

May 6, 1996

Before GARWOOD, WIENER and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Cook and Gore have appealed the district court’s order denying

their motion for summary judgment based on a qualified immunity

claim. Such a collateral order is not immediately appealable to

*
Pursuant to Local Rule 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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 Local Rule 47.5.4.
the extent it determines only whether the record in the case raises

a genuine issue of fact. Johnson v. Jones, 115 S.Ct. 2151, 2156,

2159 (1995). Here the trial court, after careful analysis,

determined that “there are so many disputed facts . . . that the

court is unable to make a determination of the objective

reasonableness of” appellants’ conduct. The facts admitted or

alleged by appellee or which the trial court determined to be not

genuinely disputed do not, of themselves, establish that appellants

are entitled to qualified immunity. It is not shown (and

appellants’ points on appeal do not assert) that the trial court

employed an erroneous substantive or procedural legal standard in

its ruling. Hence, this Court is without jurisdiction over this

appeal. Id. See also Hare v. City of Corinth, 74 F.3d 633, 638

(5th Cir. 1996) (en banc). Eastwood’s motion for sanctions is not

well taken.

APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTION FOR SANCTIONS DENIED

2

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9304. Public record. Not legal advice.