United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
October 18, 2006
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________ Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-10721
_____________________
VICTOR ALVARADO DELEON; DARCEDALIA ALVAREZ,
Plaintiffs - Appellees,
versus
CITY OF DALLAS; ET AL.,
Defendants,
MARK DE LA PAZ, Dallas Police Officer (#6378),
Defendant - Appellant.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas
USDC No. 3:02-CV-1097
_________________________________________________________________
Before JOLLY, DAVIS, AND WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
This interlocutory appeal concerns whether the district court
properly denied Dallas police officer Mark De La Paz’s qualified
immunity defense. Because we conclude that DeLeon adequately
pleaded false arrest but failed to plead an equal protection
violation, we affirm in part and reverse in part.
To defeat De La Paz’s qualified immunity defense on his false
arrest claim, DeLeon’s complaint must allege (1) facts that focus
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
specifically on De La Paz’s conduct in causing his injury, (2)
particular factual allegations that bring De La Paz within the
purview of the false arrest claim, and (3) factual allegations
demonstrating that the individual’s statements were false. Because
it is clear from the face of the complaint that DeLeon has done so,
the district court was correct to deny the qualified immunity
defense on this claim, and it did not err in refusing to order a
Rule 7(a) reply.
Turning to the equal protection claim, DeLeon’s allegation
that he was singled out because of his national origin is only
conclusory and states no specific facts to show that De La Paz was
motivated by a discriminatory motive. Therefore we find that the
district court abused its discretion in denying De La Paz’s
qualified immunity defense on this claim.
In regard to other issues raised by the parties, we reject De
La Paz’s collateral estoppel argument, because although it is true
that DeLeon’s claims against two other officers were dismissed, see
DeLeon v. City of Dallas, 141 F. App’x 258 (5th Cir. 2005)
(unpublished), the facts surrounding De La Paz’s alleged conduct
here are quite different. Next, notwithstanding DeLeon’s argument
to the contrary, De La Paz’s appeal was timely filed. Finally,
this court does not currently have jurisdiction over issues related
to DeLeon’s second incarceration.
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.
2