Antwine, et al v. Poteet, et al

* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 99-10953
Summary Calendar
HARDY ANTWINE; LORINE ANTWINE,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
versus
H. N. POTEET; K. L. PRYOR,
Defendants-Appellants.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:98-CV-1299-G
June 26, 2000
Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Officers H. N. Poteet and K. L. Pryor appeal the district
court’s denial of their motion for summary judgment based upon
qualified immunity. We have jurisdiction only to the extent that
review is sought of an issue of law and not the district court’s
determination that sufficient evidence existed to create a question
of fact with respect to a material issue. Nerren v. Livingston
Police Dep’t, 86 F.3d 469, 471-72 (5th Cir. 1996). When facts
material to the question of qualified immunity are in

-- 1 of 2 --

2
dispute, a denial of summary judgment is appropriate. Mangieri v.
Clifton, 29 F.3d 1012, 1016 (5th Cir. 1994).
The officers argue that 1) their warrantless entry into Hardy
and Lorine Antwine’s house was justified because the officers were
in hot pursuit of the Antwines’ grandson, who had evaded a lawful
detention by running into the house, 2) the officers’ use of force
against the Antwines was reasonable in light of the officers’ need
to arrest the grandson and the Antwines’ interference with the
officers’ actions, and 3) the arrest of Lorine Antwine was
justified because she was interfering with the officers’
apprehension of the grandson in violation of Texas Penal Code Ann.
§ 38.15(a).
We conclude, as did the district court, that genuine issues of
material fact exist such that we cannot determine the
reasonableness of the officers’ actions as a matter of law.
Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction, and the appeal is DISMISSED.
For lack of compliance with the appropriate rules, the
Antwines’ request for attorney fees and court costs is not properly
before this court. See e.g., Fed. R. App. P. 39(d); 5TH CIR. R.
47.8.1.

-- 2 of 2 --