Seymour, et al v. City of Houston

*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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-20763
Summary Calendar
AL SEYMOUR, Individually, and as Heirs, Representatives and/or
Beneficiaries of the Estate of Sheryl Sue Seymour; PEGGY SEYMOUR,
Individually, and as Heirs, Representatives and/or Beneficiaries of
the Estate of Sheryl Sue Seymour,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
versus
CITY OF HOUSTON; ET AL,
Defendants,
J G LOPEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Southern District of Texas
H-99-CV-2198
April 18, 2001
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARSKDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Officer J.G. Lopez appeals the district court's denial of his
motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds. We find

-- 1 of 2 --

1See Bazan v. Hidalgo County, No. 97-41463, 2001 WL 293516, at
*8 (5th Cir. Mar. 27, 2001) (stating that an appellate court has
jurisdiction over interlocutory appeals from qualified immunity
rulings where a party challenges the materiality of the factual
issues, and not where the genuineness of the factual issues is
challenged).
2 See Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304 (1995).
2
his arguments unpersuasive and determine that we lack jurisdiction
to decide this matter.
The district court relied on three factual disputes that were
material to the reasonableness inquiry.1 The district court noted
that Sheryl Sue Seymour was five feet tall and weighed only 105
pounds, raising questions as to the seriousness of the threat she
posed to the three officers. In fact, one of the paramedics
asserted that he defended himself with a metal clipboard and never
perceived himself to be in any real danger. The district court also
determined that a fact question existed regarding whether the
officers could have retreated further, as well as whether Lopez
knew of the decedent's mental condition. We have no jurisdiction to
determine the merits of these factual disputes on appeal.2
We therefore DISMISS the instant appeal for want of
jurisdiction.

-- 2 of 2 --