Federal Court Improperly Defers Judgment, Allows Discovery on Qualified Immunity Defense

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has held that a lower court incorrectly deferred judgment on the defendants’ motion seeking qualified immunity and improperly allowed limited discovery.

Plaintiffs filed suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas against federal officials, alleging that the federal officials’ actions led to the injury of one plaintiff and the death of another’s son in an ambush. The defendants filed a motion seeking qualified immunity. The district court deferred judgment and allowed the plaintiffs discovery. The defendants appealed, and on April 18, 2014, the Court of Appeals concluded that the district court had failed to determine if the plaintiffs’ claims had overcome the defendants’ qualified immunity defense and if so, the district court did not indicate any facts that needed to be resolved to justify discovery in order for the district court to rule on the defendants’ motion.

Drug cartel members ambushed and shot Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agents Victor Avila and Jaime Zapata in Mexico on February 15, 2011. Avila was seriously injured but Jaime Zapata was killed. Avila, Amador Zapata, and Mary Zapata – Jaime Zapata’s mother – filed a suit seeking damages against ten federal officials, apparently consisting of FBI and ATF officers. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants had conducted an operation that leaked illegal guns into Mexico in an unsuccessful and unsafe attempt to track them to drug cartel leaders – the same guns used in the ambush. The plaintiffs additionally claimed that the ATF’s tracking and surveillance had been inadequate and that some of the defendants contributed to the danger that Avila and Zapata faced by sending them into an area with little protection.

The defendants subsequently filed a motion asserting qualified immunity, arguing that the plaintiffs had neither alleged facts supporting a constitutional violation nor had they stated a claim demonstrating the violation of clearly established constitutional law. The district court deferred a ruling on the motion, stating that the plaintiff had specified why they believed “qualified immunity did not apply,” that the defendants had not contested the plaintiffs’ arguments and that the defendants’ qualified immunity defense had been “certainly contested.” The defendants appealed, arguing, among other claims, that the district court’s judgment had not followed the procedure that had been established by federal case law.

Because the district court’s order had been non-final, the Court of Appeals only had jurisdiction to consider the appeal as it applied to the district court’s deferred ruling and ordered discovery. The Court agreed with the defendants that the district court’s judgment had failed to follow established procedure. The procedure requires a plaintiff to allege facts that allow a court to reasonably infer that a defendant caused an injury and that injury overcomes a qualified immunity defense. When a court has determined that some of the plaintiffs’ facts remain unclear, preventing the court from adjudicating the qualified immunity issue, the court may allow discovery “narrowly tailored to uncover only those facts needed to rule on the immunity claim.”

Applying this procedure, the court of appeals held that “[T]he district court failed to make an initial determination that the plaintiffs’ allegation, if true, would defeat qualified immunity” and failed to “identify any questions of fact it needed to resolve before it would be able to determine whether the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity.”

The court of appeals remanded the case back to the district court, instructing the district court to apply the discussed procedure. See: Zapata v. Melson, 750 F.3d 481 (5th Cir. Tex. 2014).

Subscribe today

Already a subscriber? Login

Related legal case