United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS F I L E D
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT January 12, 2006
_____________________ Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-40037
____________________
BAUDELIO CASTILLO, ET AL,
Plaintiffs,
BAUDELIO CASTILLO; RICHARD ACEVEDO,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
CITY OF WESLACO; ET AL,
Defendants,
FRANK CASTELLANOS, City Manager; J.D. MARTINEZ, Police
Chief; and ENRIQUE GONZALEZ, Assistant Police Chief,
Defendants-Appellants.
__________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Southern District of Texas
(01-CV-99)
__________________
Before REAVLEY, DAVIS and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
The Plaintiff Police Officers Castillo, Acevedo, Meza,
and Kennedy initiated this suit against the City of Weslaco
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
1
and Defendant-Appellants City Manager Castellanos, Police
Chief Martinez, and Assistant Police Chief Gonzalez,
asserting claims under 48 U.S.C. § 1983 for allegedly
retaliating against plaintiffs based on union activism.
Finding that the Officers sufficiently alleged a violation
of clearly established federal law, the district court
denied the Appellants' motion for summary judgment asserting
qualified immunity and the Appellants appealed.
In the City Officials’ first appeal to this Court, we
found that the district court had not “highlight[ed]
evidence that, if interpreted in the light most favorable to
the plaintiffs, identifies conduct by the defendant that
violated clearly established law.” Castillo v. City of
Weslaco, 369 F.3d 504, 506 (5th Cir.2004). We then remanded
the case to the district court with directions to “provide a
supplemental order setting forth the factual scenario that
it assumed in construing the summary judgment evidence in
the light most favorable to the Officers and therefore
denying the Appellants’ motion for summary judgment based on
qualified immunity.” Id. at 507.
In a supplemental order, the district court decided
that, upon further review, it would modify in part its order
and grant the Appellants’ summary judgment motion with
2
respect to two of the Officers, Juan Meza and Brent Kennedy.
The same panel of this Court then vacated the district
court's denial of summary judgment and remanded to the
district court so that it could enter an order consistent
with the findings in its supplemental order. Castillo v.
City of Weslaco, 388 F.3d 464, 465. The district court did
so, and in an order supported by a full discussion of the
record, granted Appellants’ motion for summary judgment
based on qualified immunity with respect to Officers Meza
and Kennedy, but denied the motion with respect to Officers
Castillo and Acevedo, concluding that the summary judgment
record reflected genuine issues of material fact.
Appellants appeal this denial.
After considering the parties’ briefs, oral arguments,
and pertinent portions of the record, we agree with the
district court's well-supported order. We agree with the
district court that Appellees have demonstrated that their
right to participate in union activities was clearly
established. We also agree with the district court that
issues of fact are presented regarding whether Appellees
suffered adverse personnel action at the hands of the
Defendants because of their association with and advocacy
for a union competing for recognition as the bargaining
3
agent of the police department. We therefore DISMISS the
appeal.
DISMISSED.
4