Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Martinez v. Donna Indep Sch Dist, 08-40062 (2008)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Number: 08-40062 Visitors: 76
Filed: Dec. 12, 2008
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED December 12, 2008 No. 08-40062 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk ANDRES MARTINEZ Plaintiff-Appellee v. ELOY INFANTE, in his individual capacity; GEORGE HERNANDEZ, in his individual capacity; ANICETO SANTANA, in his individual capacity; SAUL MATA, in his individual capacity; and RICHIE MORENO, in his individual capacity Defendants-Appellants Appeal from the United States District Court for t
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED December 12, 2008 No. 08-40062 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk ANDRES MARTINEZ Plaintiff-Appellee v. ELOY INFANTE, in his individual capacity; GEORGE HERNANDEZ, in his individual capacity; ANICETO SANTANA, in his individual capacity; SAUL MATA, in his individual capacity; and RICHIE MORENO, in his individual capacity Defendants-Appellants Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas No. 7:03-CV-00377 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* This appeal reaches us after the district court refused to grant qualified immunity to the defendants-appellants for their alleged actions taken in violation of the plaintiff-appellee’s constitutional rights. Construing the facts under the appropriate pre-trial standards, the district court found that the law * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. No. 08-40062 was clearly established that Martinez was entitled to procedural protections under Texas law for either his superintendent contract or, if that contract was void, his administrator contract; in light of this, it was objectively unreasonable for the defendants-appellants to deny him such process. We agree with the district court and we AFFIRM its judgment. 2
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer