Ramiro Reyes; Florentino Martinez; Elizabeth Martinez v. CARL SAZAN, Etc;

*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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
June 5, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________
No. 02-30596
_____________________
RAMIRO REYES; FLORENTINO MARTINEZ; ELIZABETH MARTINEZ
Plaintiffs - Appellees
v.
CARL SAZAN, Etc; ET AL
Defendants
KURT VORHOFF
Defendant – Appellant
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
No. 97-CV-133
_________________________________________________________________
Before KING, Chief Judge, and DAVIS and BENAVIDES, Circuit
Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
This appeal involves a question of qualified immunity
related to an alleged unconstitutional search by defendant
trooper Kurt Vorhoff. In their complaint, the plaintiffs allege
violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 42 U.S.C. § 1985.
Specifically, the plaintiffs claim that defendants Vorhoff and

-- 1 of 3 --

2
trooper Carl Sazan violated their right to be free from
unreasonable searches under the Fourth Amendment when the
defendants stopped the plaintiffs on Interstate 12 in Louisiana
and painstakingly searched (at Troop L Headquarters) the
plaintiffs’ vehicle.
On May 9, 2002, the district court denied, in part, and
granted, in part, Vorhoff’s motion for summary judgment. In so
doing, it summarily dismissed the plaintiffs’ § 1985 claims
against Vorhoff but declined to dismiss the plaintiffs’ § 1983
claims against him. Vorhoff appeals the district court’s order
to the extent it denied, in part, his motion.
Vorhoff contends that the district court’s order is
immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine.
However, as we stated in Bazan v. Hidalgo County, 246 F.3d 481,
490 (5th Cir. 2001), we lack jurisdiction under this narrow
doctrine to consider challenges to the district court’s findings
regarding the genuineness of material facts. Id. (emphasis
added). Rather, we have jurisdiction only “if [the appeal]
challenges the materiality of factual issues,” a purely legal
question. Id. (emphasis added).
Here, Vorhoff appeals the denial of his motion insofar as
the district court found a genuine issue of fact regarding
whether the defendant troopers fabricated evidence that a
positive odor alert existed. In this regard, we see Vorhoff’s
objections as going to the district court’s findings regarding

-- 2 of 3 --

3
the genuineness – that is, whether the facts implicate a real and
substantial dispute – rather than the materiality – that is,
whether the genuinely disputed facts might be outcome-
determinative to a finding of qualified immunity. Id. at 489.
As such, we are without jurisdiction to consider the appeal.
APPEAL DISMISSED.

-- 3 of 3 --