Wesley Jones v. City of Houston
689 F. App'x 337
5th Cir.2017Background
- On Oct. 19, 2012, Houston police Officers Delacruz and Lopez responded to an animal-abuse 911 call and went to the Joneses’ home; the front door was open and officers announced themselves.
- Inside the home were Wesley and Aisling Jones and their eight‑year‑old Boxer, Boss (55 lbs.), which had no history of aggression and was recovering from surgery.
- Officers fired three shots; the Joneses say the first shot struck Boss while he was inside the house and subsequent shots struck him while he was retreating and never came within 10–15 feet of officers.
- Officers contend Boss charged and attempted to bite Officer Delacruz, who fired two shots; Officer Lopez then fired once as the dog allegedly turned to continue the attack.
- The district court denied the officers’ summary judgment motion based on qualified immunity, finding genuine factual disputes about the danger posed by the dog and concluding the killing could constitute an unconstitutional seizure.
- On interlocutory appeal the Fifth Circuit limited review to pure legal questions (including whether the killing states a Fourth Amendment claim) and the materiality of factual disputes, but not their genuineness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether killing a pet dog qualifies as a "seizure" under the Fourth Amendment | Jones: killing Boss is a seizure triggering Fourth Amendment protection | Officers: killing a dog is not a Fourth Amendment seizure | Court: killing a pet dog can be a Fourth Amendment seizure |
| Whether the officers are entitled to qualified immunity at summary judgment | Jones: genuine disputed facts show force was unreasonable | Officers: evidence (officer testimony) shows reasonable force; factual dispute is false | Court: cannot resolve qualified immunity because genuine material factual disputes exist; denial of summary judgment stands (appeal dismissed) |
| Whether disputed facts are "blatantly contradicted" (Scott v. Harris) so summary judgment can be granted | Jones: their account is credible and creates genuine dispute | Officers: plaintiffs’ version is undermined and should be disregarded | Court: no dispositive contemporaneous video; disputes are competing testimony and therefore material and not for interlocutory review |
| Scope of appellate jurisdiction over denial of qualified immunity | Jones: appeal should be dismissed because factual issues remain | Officers: collateral-order review permitted but limited to legal issues | Court: has jurisdiction only to decide pure legal questions (e.g., whether killing a dog is a Fourth Amendment claim); lacks jurisdiction to resolve factual genuineness |
Key Cases Cited
- Kinney v. Weaver, 367 F.3d 337 (5th Cir. 2004) (denial of qualified immunity may be immediately appealed as a collateral order)
- Kovacic v. Villarreal, 628 F.3d 209 (5th Cir. 2010) (interlocutory review of qualified immunity limited to issues of law)
- Brothers v. Zoss, 837 F.3d 513 (5th Cir. 2016) (appellate review covers materiality of factual disputes, not their genuineness)
- Palmer v. Johnson, 193 F.3d 346 (5th Cir. 1999) (court may decide whether denial of immunity turns on a pure legal question such as whether a claim states a constitutional violation)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007) (a contemporaneous video that blatantly contradicts testimony can make a dispute immaterial)
- Baulch v. Johns, 70 F.3d 813 (5th Cir. 1995) (district court factual determinations on force are generally not reviewable on interlocutory appeal)
- Johnson v. Johnson, 385 F.3d 503 (5th Cir. 2004) (limits on appellate review of the sufficiency of the summary-judgment record)
- Altman v. City of High Point, 330 F.3d 194 (4th Cir. 2003) (privately owned dogs are "effects" protected by the Fourth Amendment)
- Brown v. Battle Creek Police Dep’t, 844 F.3d 556 (6th Cir. 2016) (collecting cases recognizing that killing a pet dog can be a Fourth Amendment seizure)