Yаneth FUENTES; Hector Alfonso Fuentes; Victor Javier Fuentes; Kimberly Yuri Fuentes; Juan Fuentes; Angelica Fuentes, Plaintiffs-Appellees v. Matthew RIGGLE, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-41003.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
May 8, 2015.
Michael Keith Dollahite, M. Keith Dollahite, P.C., Tyler, TX, Defendant-Appellant.
Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and KING and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Defendant-Appellant Matthew Riggle appeals the district court‘s denial of his motion for summary judgment, which was premised on qualified immunity. For the following reasons, we DISMISS this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
I.
At 12:03 a.m. on January 1, 2013, dispatch called for officers to respond to reports of gunshots being fired in the area of 600 East Queen Street, in Tyler, Texas. Officer Matthew Riggle responded to the call with Probationary Officer Collin Hale. They were joined at the scene by Officer Brandon Lott. As the officers approached the intersection of Carlisle and Queen Streets, they heard gunshots being fired close by. The officers then exited their vehicles and moved in the direction of the gunshots. The officers then heard additional gunshots and saw muzzle flash coming from the backyard of 603 East Queen Street. They then moved along a driveway on the western side of the house towards the backyard. When they entered the backyard, they saw Victor Fuentes holding a revolver. Riggle identified himself as a police offiсer and ordered Fuentes to drop the gun. Lott turned on his weapon‘s light, pointed it at Fuentes, and also identified himself as a police officer and ordered Fuentes to drop the gun. Fuentes said nothing, did not drop the gun, and returned into the house.
Riggle‘s account of what happened next is as follows. Riggle claims that he followed Victor Fuentes into the house, purportedly to maintain his line of sight on Fuentes. As Riggle entered the doorway, Riggle claims that he again instructed Fuentes to drop the weapon. Riggle stated in his affidavit that he saw Fuentes standing ten to twenty feet from him, facing towards him, pointing the revolver directly at him. Riggle then fired his rifle several times and shot Victor Fuentes.
Officer Lott entered the house and placed hand restraints on Fuentes. Lott stated that as he entered, he saw that Fuentes had been holding a revolver and that thеre was live ammunition around Fuentes. Lott heard that others were in an adjoining room in the house and kept them back from the scene.
At 12:10:56 a.m., Riggle radioed dispatch that shots had been fired and requested EMS to respond “code” to the officers’ location. The ambulance arrived at 12:15 a.m. The EMT report states that there was “a [sic] unknown calabar [sic] revolver partially еxposed from underneath pt buttock” and that “[t]here was also several bullets [sic] laying around pt body.” The paramedics determined that Victor Fuentes was dead at the scene.
That night, Juan Fuentes was taken to the police station for an interview. Juan Fuentes was provided with an interpreter and had an attorney present. During the interview, the interviewing officer, Officer Roberts, asked Juan Fuentes whether Victor Fuеntes had a gun that night:
Roberts: Did Victor fire a gun today?
Fuentes: I don‘t know.
Roberts: Did you see him with a gun today?
Fuentes: No.
...
Roberts: Has he ever seen him with a gun?
[Interpreter]: (Speaking Spanish) Have you seen your son with a gun?
Fuentes: No.
Roberts: Has he seen him with a gun tonight?
[Interpreter]: (Speaking Spanish) Did you see your son with a gun tonight?
Fuentes: No.
The officer returned to the subject later in the interview:
Roberts: Did Victor have anything in his hands that could be perceived as a weapon?
Fuentes: I don‘t know. I don‘t know. I don‘t know.
Roberts: Did he point [indicating interruption]
Fuentes: No. He no do nothing to him.
Roberts: Did Victor have a gun?
Fuentes: He no do nothing to him, I say [indicating interruption]
Roberts: I know. Did Victor have a gun?
Fuentes: ... [cont‘d] to get killed. He no do nothing to the police man to get killed.
Roberts: I understand. I‘m asking you: did Victor had [sic] a gun in his hand.
Fuentes: I don‘t know. I don‘t know.
Roberts: Could he have had a gun in his hand?
Fuentes: Me?
Roberts: No. Victor.
Fuentes: I don‘t know.
Roberts: Could he have had a gun in his hand?
Fuentes: I mean, you‘re going to find out. I don‘t know.
Roberts: Well, I‘m asking you if you saw one.
Fuentes: No.
Juan Fuentes also gаve a deposition in this case in which he recounted the shooting:
Q. Tell me what happened next then.
A. As I told you before, my son, Victor, came to me and told me, “It‘s time to go give my mother a—her hug,” which as I told you before he didn‘t get to do.
He turned around about three steps, and then we heard that someone had opened the door. At the same time when the door was open, he walked in about maybe one or two steps, and he said, “Hands up,” аnd shoot. Q. Is that all you remember about what happened before the officer shot Victor?
A. That‘s all that happened. He walked in and shot him. No reason or anything.
Q. Did Victor have a gun in his hand when the officer shot him?
A. I didn‘t see him with a firearm at all.
He continued:
Q. Where were the guns that you had been shooting?
A. (Indicating) As I told you, there is an opening right there, and there is a dresser where my wife puts clothes, so it‘s where I put them. On top of it.
Q. And Victor was walking away from you towards the front of the house at the double doors?
A. Correct.
Q. Did you see Victor at the moment he was shot?
A. Yes. As I told you, he was walking.
Q. Right. You saw him before the officer shot his gun, you saw Victor walking away?
A. Correct.
Q. Then the officer you say opened the door and the door hit you on the right shoulder?
A. Correct.
Q. And then the officer shot Victor?
A. Right at the time when he—when he entered, he shot him.
Q. So, when the door hit you, did it stop you from seeing Victor at the moment he was shot by the officer?
A. No. No, because it does not close all the way. There was an opening and it‘s where I was seeing. The door could not go the way because I was in between, so thеre was an opening.
Q. And the officer came in, he said something to Victor, correct?
A. Yes. He did. He said, “Hands up,” at the same time he shot him.
Q. Did Victor—was Victor looking at the officer or was he looking at the double doors going into the front of the house?
A. He was not looking at him. He was facing the front—the double doors. I think when he was shot, he tried to turn to see.
...
Q. Was Victor facing the double doors to the front at the momеnt the officer shot him?
A. That‘s correct.
...
Q. Did Victor have anything in his hand when the officer fired his shots?
A. No, I don‘t think so.
Q. Prior to the moment when the officer fired his shots, had you ever seen Victor touch one of your guns that evening?
A. I didn‘t see him.
Q. Has anyone ever said to you that they saw Victor holding one of your guns on December 31, 2013(sic)?
A. No.
Q. Was Victor holding any bullets in either of his hands when the officer fired his shots?
A. No, I didn‘t see him.
Q. Could you see Victor‘s hands when the officer came in to the room? A. I saw him—I saw him, I saw his bоdy and his hands, and he was walking. What do you mean by that? But I didn‘t see him carrying anything in his hands.
Q. But could you see—actually see his hands?
A. Yes. Yes. As he was walking.
Q. When the officer fired his shots, where were Victor‘s hands?
A. He was—he was walking.
Q. Were his hands down by his sides, or were they up higher?
A. His hands were not up. I cannot actually explain to you where his hands were because he was walking, but they were not up.
Q. So, were they in normal as you walk with your hands towards your hips?
A. Yes. When he shot him, I don‘t know what went through his mind, but he kind of jerked.
Now, he used to do that when he played. He liked to play, kind of like making, like, a jerk, kind of like (demonstrating) “What‘s up?” But he would do that just to play, and that‘s what he did when he was shot. But he didn‘t raise his hands up. He kind of, like, made a sudden movement.
An autopsy was conducted on Victor Fuentes on January 1, 2013. The autopsy showed that Victor Fuentes had been shot three times. Two of the bullets struck Victor Fuentes‘s chest and abdomen. The medical examiner states in her affidаvit that “[t]wo of the bullet wounds are consistent with Victor Fuentes standing, facing toward the officer, with his right arm outstretched and right hand pointed toward the officer, when the officer shot Victor Fuentes.” The third bullet struck Fuentes in the back of the neck, then “[a]fter perforating the skin and subcutaneous tissue, the bullet perforates the musculature of the posterior neck and posterior left side of the back before perforating the posterior left fourth rib.” “The bullet then penetrates the lower lobe of the left lung where a small-caliber, moderately deformed, copper-jacket with its base is recovered.” According to the autopsy report, “[t]he directions of the bullet are back to front, downward, and right to left.” In her affidavit, the medical examiner states that “[n]one of the bullet wounds are consistent with Victor Fuentes being uрright, walking away from the officer, with his back to the officer, and with his arms and hands down at his sides, when the officer shot Victor Fuentes.”
Victor Fuentes‘s family brought suit against Riggle, the chief of police, and the City of Tyler.1 The plaintiffs allege that Riggle violated Fuentes‘s Fourth Amendment rights by affecting an unreasonable search of the house and by using excessive force in shooting and killing Fuentes. They also allege that Riggle violated Fuentes‘s сonstitutional rights by demonstrating deliberate indifference to Fuentes‘s medical needs in the immediate aftermath of the shooting. Riggle moved for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. The magistrate judge recommended denying Riggle‘s motion for summary judgment. Noting the conflict between Riggle‘s account of the shooting and Juan Fuentes‘s, the magistrate stated “[c]onsistent with the Seventh Amend-
II.
Our first consideration is our jurisdiction to hear this appeal. We have jurisdiction only to hear appeals from “final decisions of the district courts of the United States.”
Riggle makes three arguments in contending that the district court erred in denying his motion for summary judgment. First, he argues that Juan Fuentes‘s testimony that he did not “see” Victor Fuentes holding a gun at the time of the shooting is insufficient as a matter of law to preclude summary judgment.3 Second, Riggle argues that Juan Fuentes‘s deposition contradicts his prior statements in a police interview and therefore should have been disregarded. Cf. S.W.S. Erectors, Inc. v. Infax, Inc., 72 F.3d 489, 495 (5th Cir. 1996) (“It is well settled that this court does not allow a party to defeat a motion for summary judgment using an affidavit that impeaches, without explanation, sworn testimony.“). Third, Riggle argues, citing Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007), that Juan Fuentes‘s testimony is sо thoroughly contradicted by the other evidence in the summary judgment record that no reasonable jury could return a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs. But all of these arguments go to the genuineness of the factual dispute, not its materiality. Riggle does not argue that if he in fact shot an unarmed Victor Fuentes in the back, he did not violate Victor Fuentes‘s clearly established constitutional rights. His argument is that the district court erred in сoncluding that sufficient facts were in the record to permit such a factual finding. That is a classic argument that the factual dispute was not genuine, and we therefore lack jurisdiction over his appeal. See Duran v. Sirgedas, 240 Fed. Appx. 104, 109-10 (7th Cir. 2007) (unpublished) (“Officer Peslak claims that the district court should have stricken this affidavit because it contradicted the previous testimony Moreno gave in her deposition.... [U]nder Johnson, we lack jurisdiction in this case to review the challenge to Moreno‘s affidavit, as such a challenge is, in essence, an attack on the district court‘s conclusion as to whether or not the pretrial record
Riggle attempts to circumvent our jurisdictional limitations by arguing that whether a reasonable jury cоuld return a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs is a “question of law.” Yet summary judgment—and all of its facets—is always a question of law. The final judgment rule, however, places limits on which questions of law are subject to interlocutory review. Were we to accept Riggle‘s argument, the distinction drawn in our cases between questions of genuineness and questions of materiality would be obliterated. We would be left conducting a plenary, de novo review of the district court‘s decision on the summary judgment motion. Riggle‘s argument therefore fails.
Nevertheless, we must pause for a moment to consider Riggle‘s argument predicated on Scott v. Harris. In Scott v. Harris, the Supreme Court heard an appeal from a denial of summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds and held that the district court erred in accepting the plaintiff‘s version of facts as correct when an undisputed video recоrding of the car chase at issue existed. 550 U.S. at 376, 380-81. In Scott, a police officer ended a high-speed pursuit by ramming the fleeing suspect‘s car off the road, rendering the suspect a quadriplegic. Id. at 374-76. Considering an appeal from the district court‘s denial of summary judgment, the Supreme Court noted that while the norm at summary judgment is to adopt “the plaintiff‘s version of the facts,” the situation is altered where there is “a videotape сapturing the events in question.” Id. at 378. The Court concluded that “[w]hen opposing parties tell two different stories, one of which is blatantly contradicted by the record, so that no reasonable jury could believe it, a court should not adopt that version of the facts for purposes of ruling on a motion for summary judgment.” Id. at 380. The Court stated that “[t]he Court of Appeals should not have relied on such visible fiction [i.e., the plaintiff‘s version of events]; it should have viewed the facts in the light depicted by the videotape.” Id. at 380-81. The Court then went on to address the legal standard for Fourth Amendment excessive force claims and to apply it to the facts as shown in the videotape. Id. at 381-86. While the question of jurisdiction does not appear to have been raised, the Supreme Court later assumed that it had found that it had jurisdiction in Scott. See Plumhoff v. Rickard, 572 U.S. 765, 773 (2014) (“The District Court order here is nоt materially distinguishable from the District Court order in Scott v. Harris, and in that case we expressed no doubts about the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals under § 1291.“). Jurisdictionally speaking, Scott is problematic, as deciding whose version of the facts must be accepted falls squarely within the realm of a dispute as to genuine-
Riggle has no doubt marshalled evidence that tends to undermine Juan Fuentes‘s account of Victor Fuentes‘s death. His arguments that such evidence precludes the existence of a genuine dispute of fact for purposes of
III.
We therefore DISMISS the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.