Summary Calendar PASCUAL Q. OLIBAS d/b/a FREEDOM BAIL BONDS v. Sheriff Arnulfo Gomez

* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. 07-50957
Summary Calendar
PASCUAL Q. OLIBAS
d/b/a FREEDOM BAIL BONDS
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
SHERIFF ARNULFO GOMEZ
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas, El Paso
3:05-CV-225
Before WIENER, GARZA, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges..
PER CURIAM:*
Plaintiff-Appellee Pascual Q. Olibas, joined by his wife Cheryl Olibas,
individually and doing business as Freedom Bail Bonds sued, inter alia, Sheriff
Arnulfo Gomez of Reeves County, Texas pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the
Texas Constitution, alleging constitutional wrongs. Sheriff Gomez filed a motion
for summary judgment seeking dismissal grounded in qualified and official
immunity. The district court denied qualified immunity in an Order signed July
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
March 6, 2008
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 07-50957
2
27, 2007 in which the court accepted the Report and Recommendation of the
magistrate-judge who had, in an exhaustive analysis of the situation,
recommended denial of qualified immunity because the summary judgment
evidence demonstrated the existence of factual disputes as to whether Sheriff
Gomez acted with objective reasonableness, thereby preventing summary
judgment on immunity. It is well settled that an appeal of an interlocutory
ruling denying qualified immunity because of the existence of factual disputes
does not present an exception to our lack of jurisdiction to hear appeals of
interlocutory rulings. As that is the situation presented by this appeal, we do
not have jurisdiction to hear Sheriff Gomez's appeal of the district court's denial
of qualified immunity at this non-final stage of the proceedings in the district
court.
For lack of appellate jurisdiction, this appeal is
DISMISSED.

-- 2 of 2 --