Tuttle v. Sepolio

Summary

The Fifth Circuit addressed qualified immunity on interlocutory appeal in a § 1983 excessive-force and unlawful-search action arising from a no-knock warrant execution. The court affirmed denial of qualified immunity for excessive-force claims against the executing officers because plaintiffs alleged they fired without provocation, but reversed failure-to-intervene claims for lack of a clearly established right. It affirmed a failure-to-supervise claim against Lieutenant Gonzales based on allegations of deliberate indifference to a subordinate officer’s pattern of fraudulent warrant practices, while dismissing direct-liability claims against Gonzales for lack of personal involvement. The court also vacated rulings concerning Lieutenant Todd due to a separate appeal and declined jurisdiction over search-and-seizure and state-law claims not tied to the qualified immunity defense.

Holdings

1. The district court properly denied qualified immunity because plaintiffs alleged officers fired without provocation, which states a claim for excessive force.
2. The district court erred in allowing failure-to-intervene claims because plaintiffs failed to show that officers had a sufficient opportunity to intervene during the firefight.
3. The district court lacked jurisdiction to rule on Todd's motion because she had already appealed a prior order.
4. The district court erred in denying qualified immunity on direct liability claims because Gonzales was not personally involved.
5. The district court properly allowed failure-to-supervise claims because plaintiffs alleged specific instances of Goines' misconduct and Gonzales' knowledge and inaction.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court properly denied qualified immunity on excessive force claims against non-supervisory officers.
2. Whether the district court properly dismissed search-and-seizure claims against non-supervisory officers.
3. Whether failure-to-intervene claims were properly allowed.
4. Whether the district court had jurisdiction over Lieutenant Todd.
5. Whether direct liability claims against Lieutenant Gonzales were properly denied.
6. Whether failure-to-supervise claims against Lieutenant Gonzales were properly allowed.
7. Whether state-law wrongful death and survival claims are properly before the court.

Disposition

other