Magnolia Island Plantation v. Whittington, 29 F.4th 246

Barbara Lollar purchased a 365‑acre tract subject to a promissory note (the "Note"); Lucky sued Lollar in state court and obtained a judgment authorizing seizure and a sheriff’s sale of the Note to satisfy that judgment.
State law required two party appraisers and, if their valuations diverged, a third appraiser whose valuation sets the minimum bid. Lollar’s appraiser valued the Note at ~$1.48M; Lucky’s at ~$173K, triggering a third appraisal.
The sheriff’s office (deputy and supervisors) did not know a suitable third appraiser and accepted a recommendation from Lucky’s counsel to appoint Patrick Lacour; Lacour issued a ~$157K valuation without reviewing the Note.
An entity controlled by Lucky’s family bought the Note at the sheriff’s sale for $105K (near the minimum bid); Lollar sued Lucky and Sheriff Julian Whittington in federal court alleging deprivation of due process under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and parallel state‑law and state constitutional claims.
The district court denied the Sheriff qualified immunity on the § 1983 and related claims; the Sheriff appealed interlocutorily. The Fifth Circuit reviews legal consequences of undisputed facts and views facts in favor of the non‑movant.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Sheriff is entitled to qualified immunity on Lollar's individual‑capacity § 1983 due‑process claim	Lollar: sheriff (through office) deprived her of notice/hearing at the sale; office conduct caused violation	Whittington: no evidence the Sheriff was personally involved; § 1983 does not impose vicarious liability, so he is entitled to immunity	Reversed denial of qualified immunity — Sheriff entitled to qualified immunity because Lollar produced no evidence of his personal involvement
Whether state constitutional due‑process claim survives given federal immunity principles	Lollar: state claim parallels federal due‑process claim and should proceed	Whittington: federal qualified immunity analysis applies and bars relief against him in his individual capacity	Reversed denial as to state constitutional claim — same reasoning as § 1983 claim; immunity applies
Whether Sheriff’s plea of Louisiana state discretionary immunity was timely	Lollar: discretionary immunity not properly raised or proven	Whittington: entitled to state discretionary immunity under Louisiana law	Affirmed denial on procedural grounds — Sheriff raised discretionary immunity only in a reply brief; district court permissibly declined to consider it; merits not decided

Hogan v. Cunningham, 722 F.3d 725 (5th Cir. 2013) (interlocutory review limits for qualified immunity)
Kinney v. Weaver, 367 F.3d 337 (5th Cir. 2004) (scope of issues permissible on interlocutory review)
Bigford v. Taylor, 834 F.2d 1213 (5th Cir. 1988) (§ 1983 does not impose vicarious liability)
Anderson v. Pasadena Indep. Sch. Dist., 184 F.3d 439 (5th Cir. 1999) (personal involvement / causal connection standard)
Brown v. Callahan, 623 F.3d 249 (5th Cir. 2010) (burden shifting at summary judgment when qualified immunity raised)
Roberts v. City of Shreveport, 397 F.3d 287 (5th Cir. 2005) (applying federal qualified immunity principles to parallel state constitutional claims)
Ridpath v. Bd. of Governors Marshall Univ., 447 F.3d 292 (4th Cir. 2006) (courts may decline issues first raised in reply briefs)