finding that an officer’s argument that there was no factual dispute was a challenge to the “genuineness of the factual dispute”
How later courts described this case
- finding that an officer’s argument that there was no factual dispute was a challenge to the “genuineness of the factual dispute”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Case: 23-30006 Document: 00516831668 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/24/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
July 24, 2023
No. 23-30006
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Bruce Washington, Individually,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Alexander Thomas, in his individual capacity,
Defendant—Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC No. 2:22-CV-632
Before Stewart, Dennis, and Willett, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Appellant Alexander Thomas moved for summary judgment, seeking
dismissal of Appellee Bruce Washington’s claim that Thomas violated
Washington’s Fourth Amendment rights during a traffic stop. The district
court denied the motion, finding a genuine dispute of material fact as to
whether Thomas had reasonable suspicion or voluntary consent to search
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-30006 Document: 00516831668 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/24/2023
No. 23-30006
Washington. Because Thomas challenges the genuineness of the disputed
facts, we DISMISS this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
This court has “limited jurisdiction over an interlocutory appeal of a
denial of summary judgment based upon qualified immunity.” Morris v.
Leblanc, 674 F. App’x 374, 377 (5th Cir. 2016). “In deciding an interlocutory
appeal of a denial of qualified immunity, we can review the materiality of any
factual disputes, but not their genuineness.” Wagner v. Bay City, 227 F.3d 316,
320 (5th Cir. 2000); accord Craig v. Martin, 49 F.4th 404, 408–09 (5th Cir.
2022). Where, as here, an officer’s qualified immunity depends on the
resolution of genuine factual disputes, we cannot hear his appeal from the
denial of summary judgment.
Thomas claims to challenge the materiality of those facts, arguing that
there can be no disputed facts because the entire incident was captured on
video. Yet Thomas does not argue that, taking Washington’s allegations as
true, there was no constitutional violation. Reyes v. City of Richmond, 287 F.3d
346, 351 (5th Cir.2002) (“An officer challenges materiality when he contends
that, ‘taking all the plaintiffs’ factual allegations as true, no violation of a
clearly established right was shown.’”) (internal citation removed). Instead,
Thomas challenges the genuineness of the factual disputes in this case by
arguing that the video footage supports his version of events. Under our case
law, an officer’s argument that no factual disputes exist is a challenge to
“genuineness” over which we do not have jurisdiction. See Morris v. Leblanc,
674 Fed. Appx. 374, 378 (5th Cir. 2016) (finding that an officer’s argument
that there was no factual dispute was a challenge to the “genuineness of the
factual dispute”); Durant v. Brooks, 826 Fed. Appx. 331, 335 (5th Cir. 2020)
(dismissing claim on appeal for lack of jurisdiction where officer “effectively
challenge[d] the ‘genuineness’ of the factual disputes underlying [the district
court’s] findings[.]”).
2
Case: 23-30006 Document: 00516831668 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/24/2023
No. 23-30006
Because Thomas challenges the genuineness of the factual disputes
forming the basis of the district court’s denial of summary judgment, this
court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is
DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.
3