Summary Calendar DIANE ALPHA, Mother v. MATT HOOPER, 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 21, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-41567
Summary Calendar
DIANE ALPHA, Mother and Next Friend of minor children;
COLLEEN ANDERSON, Surviving minor child; CLAYTON LYNN
ANDERSON, Surviving minor child; JERRY LYNN ANDERSON,
Estate Of; TOMMY D. ANDERSON; REBECCA MULL,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
MATT HOOPER, Etc.; ET AL.,
Defendants;
MATT HOOPER, Deputy Sheriff in Hopkins County,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 5:03-CV-2
Before JONES, BENAVIDES and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Deputy Matt Hooper appeals the district court’s denial of
his motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity in this
42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit. He argues that: the disputed issues
identified by the district court are not material to the qualified

-- 1 of 3 --

1 Hooper correctly argues, however, that whether he and Officer Muñoz
identified themselves as law enforcement officers raises no material issue in the
immunity calculus, see Fraire v. City of Arlington, 957 F.2d 1268 (5th Cir.
1992), although if the jury believes they did so identify themselves, it would
enhance Hooper’s argument that Anderson intended to run him down.
2
immunity determination; the evidence establishes without dispute
that Jerry Lynn Anderson posed an immediate and serious threat to
him; and his actions were reasonable in light of the threat posed
by Anderson. Hooper further argues that the district court erred
when it denied his motion for summary judgment with respect to the
state-law claim advanced by the plaintiffs because that claim is
barred, as a matter of law, by TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. § 101.106.
Although Hooper asserts that his appeal is a challenge to
the materiality of the disputed factual issues identified by the
district court, his arguments concern the genuineness of those
factual disputes. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S.
242, 248 (1986). Consequently, this court lacks jurisdiction
to consider Hooper’s appeal from the denial of summary judgment
with respect to whether he is entitled to qualified immunity.
See Reyes v. City of Richmond, Tex., 287 F.3d 346, 350 (5th Cir.
2002).1
Because the determination whether TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM.
§ 101.106 bars the state-law claim advanced by the plaintiffs is
neither “inextricably intertwined” nor necessary to resolve the
question of qualified immunity, this court lacks jurisdiction

-- 2 of 3 --

3
to consider Hooper’s appeal of the denial of summary judgment as to
this issue. See Cantu v. Rocha, 77 F.3d 795, 805 (5th Cir. 1996).
APPEAL DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION; REMANDED TO
THE DISTRICT COURT.

-- 3 of 3 --