Rodriguez v. Neeley, 98-50183

• Decision Date: 05 March 1999
• Docket Number: No. 98-50183,98-50183
• Citation: 169 F.3d 220
• Parties: Ricardo RODRIGUEZ, Individually and As Next Friend of Xavier Valenzuela, et al., Plaintiffs, Bridget Valenzuela, Individually and As Next Friend of Xavier Valenzuela; Argelia Perez, Individually and On Behalf of Others Similarly Situated; Palmira Garcia; Xavier Valenzuela, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Mike NEELEY, Director, Ector County Adult Probation Office, et al., Defendants, Mike Neeley, Director, Ector County Adult Probation Office, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

Page 220

169 F.3d 220

Ricardo RODRIGUEZ, Individually and As Next Friend of Xavier

Valenzuela, et al., Plaintiffs,

Bridget Valenzuela, Individually and As Next Friend of

Xavier Valenzuela; Argelia Perez, Individually and On

Behalf of Others Similarly Situated; Palmira Garcia;

Xavier Valenzuela, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Mike NEELEY, Director, Ector County Adult Probation Office, et al., Defendants, Mike Neeley, Director, Ector County Adult Probation Office,

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 98-50183.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

March 5, 1999.

Mary A. Kenney, San Antonio, TX, Lynn Anne Coyle, Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law of Texas Inmmigrant & Refugee Rights Project, Enrique Thomas Moreno, Moreno & Fry, El Paso, TX, for Plaintiffs-Appellees.

Ralph C. Longmire, Law Enforcememt Def., Austin, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas.

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PATRICK E. HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judge:

A state employee of a county probation department appeals denial of the district court's partial rejection of his defense of qualified immunity to claims that plaintiffs were unconstitutionally detained in the course of a sting operation carried out with federal immigration officials and calculated to gather felons illegally in the country.

I

Mike Neeley is the director of the Ector County Adult Community Supervision and Corrections Department. In the early fall of 1995, INS Agent Villareal asked Neeley for a list of all foreign-born probationers currently under its supervision. Agent Villareal wanted to investigate their alien status and criminal convictions. Neeley furnished a list of 200 foreign-born probationers.

In late fall 1995, INS Agents Villareal and Woodward met with Neeley to discuss 42 of the listed probationers. INS agents wanted to question them at their homes, accompanied by Border Patrol agents and CSCD officers. Neeley declined, fearful of the dangers of such an effort. It is undisputed that Neeley and CSCD officers do not make arrests and are not trained to do so. Neeley volunteered to ask the targeted probationers to report to the CSCD office at a specified date and time with the understanding that the state would take no action against any who did not report.

Neeley then drafted a letter in English, and Agent Villareal translated the draft into Spanish. The letters were written on Ector County letterhead, signed by Neeley, and on November 30, 1995, mailed to the probationers advising them to report to the CSCD on December 13, 1995, to discuss the terms of their probation.

On December 13, 1995, at approximately 10:00 a.m., 26 of the 42 targeted probationers arrived at the CSCD. Plainclothes INS agents and a sheriff's deputy positioned themselves at the doors. Four persons, three adults and a child, who were not probationers accompanied some of the targeted probationers. These bystanders, Bridget Valenzuela, her four-year old son Xavier, Argelia Perez, and Palmira Garcia, were citizens of the United States.

After the doors were closed, Valenzuela sought permission to leave, asserting that she and her son were citizens and that she wished to contact an attorney for her husband. INS agents did not immediately accept her explanation and none of the four were allowed to leave immediately. Rather, according to Valenzuela, it took approximately an hour for the INS to take the proper persons into custody, accept their claimed identity, and allow them to leave.

The four bystanders sued Neeley for money damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, asserting that by not allowing them to leave immediately, defendants deprived them of their Fourth Amendment rights. The district court granted Neeley's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the claims to money damages, finding Neeley was entitled to qualified immunity. The district court later modified its ruling, denying Neeley qualified immunity to the conspiracy claim, but adhering to its earlier ruling in all other respects. The district court was apparently persuaded that whether the detentions should be attributed to Neeley as a member of the claimed conspiracy presented genuine issues of material fact, that is, whether Neeley's actions in coordinating with other county officials, the Border Patrol, and the INS caused the plaintiffs to be illegally detained.

Neeley argues to this court that plaintiffs failed to state a claim, and in any event the district court erred in denying summary judgment.

II

A denial of qualified immunity is immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine, when based on an issue of law. See Cantu v. Rocha, 77 F.3d 795, 802 (5th Cir.1996) (citing Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526, 105 S.Ct. 2806, 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985)). After giving plaintiffs the benefits of all disputed questions of fact, determining from the summary judgment record whether the bystanders' claim under § 1983 against Neeley may proceed is a question of law. See Siegert v. Gilley, 500 U.S. 226, 232, 111 S.Ct. 1789, 114 L.Ed.2d 277 (1991). We have jurisdiction over this interlocutory appeal.

III

The bystanders allege, under § 1983, that Neeley conspired with the other defendants to violate their Fourth Amendment rights by illegally detaining them at the CSCD. The bystanders argue that Neeley's conduct in coordinating the "meeting" at the...