Bustos v. City of El Paso Texas

Fifth Circuit

Bustos v. City of El Paso Texas

178 F. App'x 418

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedMay 5, 2006

Docket04-50305

StatusUnpublished

This text of 178 F. App'x 418 (Bustos v. City of El Paso Texas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bustos v. City of El Paso Texas, 178 F. App'x 418 (5th Cir. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Victor Bustos, Sr., Texas prisoner # 1018856, seeks to proceed in forma pau- *419 peris (“IFP”)'to appeal the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for failure to state a claim. Bustos alleged, inter alia, that El Paso Narcotics Division Detective Ruben Trejo initiated a traffic stop of his van on the orders of Detective Cesar Diaz, despite lack of probable cause. He also alleged that Detective John Masías made false statements in an affidavit regarding marijuana that was found in his van during the stop.

By moving to proceed IFP, Bustos is challenging the district court’s certification that his appeal was not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir.1997); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); Fed. R.App. P. 24(a)(3). Our review of the record indicates that Bustos’s allegations state a claim under the Fourth Amendment. See e.g., Estep v. Dallas County, Texas, 310 F.3d 353, 356 & n. 1 (5th Cir. 2002). Whether the facts ultimately will prove a Fourth Amendment claim is not a question to be answered at this stage of the proceedings. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir.1983).

Accordingly, the motion to proceed IFP is GRANTED. The district court’s dismissal of Bustos’s claims against the El Paso Police Department Narcotics Division and the City of El Paso, and its dismissal of any claims against district attorneys Esparza and Lytle, are affirmed. As to Bustos’s claim that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated when Detectives Trejo and Diaz conducted a traffic stop without probable cause, the judgment and certification decision are VACATED, and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings.

IFP GRANTED; AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM: *

Victor Bustos, Sr., Texas prisoner # 1018856, seeks to proceed in forma pau- *419 peris (“IFP”)'to appeal the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for failure to state a claim. Bustos alleged, inter alia, that El Paso Narcotics Division Detective Ruben Trejo initiated a traffic stop of his van on the orders of Detective Cesar Diaz, despite lack of probable cause. He also alleged that Detective John Masías made false statements in an affidavit regarding marijuana that was found in his van during the stop.

By moving to proceed IFP, Bustos is challenging the district court’s certification that his appeal was not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir.1997); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); Fed. R.App. P. 24(a)(3). Our review of the record indicates that Bustos’s allegations state a claim under the Fourth Amendment. See e.g., Estep v. Dallas County, Texas, 310 F.3d 353, 356 & n. 1 (5th Cir. 2002). Whether the facts ultimately will prove a Fourth Amendment claim is not a question to be answered at this stage of the proceedings. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir.1983).

Accordingly, the motion to proceed IFP is GRANTED. The district court’s dismissal of Bustos’s claims against the El Paso Police Department Narcotics Division and the City of El Paso, and its dismissal of any claims against district attorneys Esparza and Lytle, are affirmed. As to Bustos’s claim that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated when Detectives Trejo and Diaz conducted a traffic stop without probable cause, the judgment and certification decision are VACATED, and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings.

IFP GRANTED; AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART.

*

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

178 F. App'x 418, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bustos-v-city-of-el-paso-texas-ca5-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack