Hope Waggoner and Jamie Torres, as individuals and on behalf of V.T., a minor v. The New Mexico Children, Youth & Families Department and Jacob Torres, in his individual capacity

W.D. Texas

Hope Waggoner and Jamie Torres, as individuals and on behalf of V.T., a minor v. The New Mexico Children, Youth & Families Department and Jacob Torres, in his individual capacity

District Court, W.D. Texas·Decided August 24, 2026·No. 3:25-cv-00166·Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO DIVISION

HOPE WAGGONER and JAMIE TORRES, § as individuals and on behalf of V.T., a minor, § § Plaintiffs, § § v. § EP-25-CV-00166-RFC § THE NEW MEXICO CHILDREN, YOUTH § & FAMILIES DEPARTMENT and JACOB § TORRES, in his individual capacity, § § Defendants. §

ORDER TO SUPPLEMENT BRIEFING Before the court is the above captioned case, now amended to remove all claims against Defendant New Mexico Children, Youth & Families Department. See Order Dismiss. Claims Against Def. the N.M. Child., Youth & Fams. Dep’t., ECF No 69. In its original answer Defendant alleged “[t]he claims and causes of action against Defendant Jacob Torres are barred by the doctrine of qualified immunity.” Defs.’ Ans. to Compl., ECF No. 10 [hereinafter “Ans.”]. As of today, the sole defendant is Jacob Torres. There has been no briefing on the issue of qualified immunity. The issue of qualified immunity raises two questions: “[f]irst, does the complaint allege a constitutional violation? If so, was the violation clearly established so that the government official would have known [he] was violating the law?” Romero v. Brown, 937 F.3d 514, 519 (5th Cir. 2019) (citing Turner v. Lieutenant Driver, 848 F.3d 678, 685 (5th Cir. 2017)). When addressing “civil rights actions brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Supreme Court has stated that ‘whether the conduct of which the plaintiff complains violated clearly established law’ is an ‘essentially legal question’ that could be resolved before trial or discovery in some cases.” U.S. v. Maggitt, 778 F.2d 1029, 1034-35 (Sth Cir. 1985) (quoting Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 (1985)). Since this is a question of law, it is most properly dealt with by the Court before trial. Additionally, “Ta]lthough there is some authority to the contrary, it appears that the majority of courts, including the Fifth Circuit, currently hold that the court ‘may raise the issue of qualified immunity sua sponte.’” Alexander v. Tangipahoa Parish Sheriff Dep t., No. 05-2423, 2006 WL 4017825, at *5 (E.D.La. Oct. 2, 2006) (quoting Greco v. Nat’l. R.R. Passenger Corp., No. 02-CV-6862, 2005 WL 3591196, at *7 n. 6 (E.D.Pa. Dec. 30, 2005)) (collecting cases). While this is not truly sua sponte since Defendant raised the issue of qualified immunity in their answer, see Ans., the Court is requesting briefing to address the issue before trial. See U.S. v. Maggitt, 778 F.2d at 1034-35. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, on or before September 8, 2026, Defendant shall file additional briefing addressing (1) whether the complaint alleges a constitutional violation(s); and (2) whether the violation(s) is clearly established so that Defendant Jacob Torres would have known he was violating the law. Plaintiffs shall file a response no later than September 15, 2026. SIGNED this 24th day of August, 2026.

ROBERT F. CASTANEDA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO DIVISION

HOPE WAGGONER and JAMIE TORRES, § as individuals and on behalf of V.T., a minor, § § Plaintiffs, § § v. § EP-25-CV-00166-RFC § THE NEW MEXICO CHILDREN, YOUTH § & FAMILIES DEPARTMENT and JACOB § TORRES, in his individual capacity, § § Defendants. §

ORDER TO SUPPLEMENT BRIEFING Before the court is the above captioned case, now amended to remove all claims against Defendant New Mexico Children, Youth & Families Department. See Order Dismiss. Claims Against Def. the N.M. Child., Youth & Fams. Dep’t., ECF No 69. In its original answer Defendant alleged “[t]he claims and causes of action against Defendant Jacob Torres are barred by the doctrine of qualified immunity.” Defs.’ Ans. to Compl., ECF No. 10 [hereinafter “Ans.”]. As of today, the sole defendant is Jacob Torres. There has been no briefing on the issue of qualified immunity. The issue of qualified immunity raises two questions: “[f]irst, does the complaint allege a constitutional violation? If so, was the violation clearly established so that the government official would have known [he] was violating the law?” Romero v. Brown, 937 F.3d 514, 519 (5th Cir. 2019) (citing Turner v. Lieutenant Driver, 848 F.3d 678, 685 (5th Cir. 2017)). When addressing “civil rights actions brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Supreme Court has stated that ‘whether the conduct of which the plaintiff complains violated clearly established law’ is an ‘essentially legal question’ that could be resolved before trial or discovery in some cases.” U.S. v. Maggitt, 778 F.2d 1029, 1034-35 (Sth Cir. 1985) (quoting Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 (1985)). Since this is a question of law, it is most properly dealt with by the Court before trial. Additionally, “Ta]lthough there is some authority to the contrary, it appears that the majority of courts, including the Fifth Circuit, currently hold that the court ‘may raise the issue of qualified immunity sua sponte.’” Alexander v. Tangipahoa Parish Sheriff Dep t., No. 05-2423, 2006 WL 4017825, at *5 (E.D.La. Oct. 2, 2006) (quoting Greco v. Nat’l. R.R. Passenger Corp., No. 02-CV-6862, 2005 WL 3591196, at *7 n. 6 (E.D.Pa. Dec. 30, 2005)) (collecting cases). While this is not truly sua sponte since Defendant raised the issue of qualified immunity in their answer, see Ans., the Court is requesting briefing to address the issue before trial. See U.S. v. Maggitt, 778 F.2d at 1034-35. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, on or before September 8, 2026, Defendant shall file additional briefing addressing (1) whether the complaint alleges a constitutional violation(s); and (2) whether the violation(s) is clearly established so that Defendant Jacob Torres would have known he was violating the law. Plaintiffs shall file a response no later than September 15, 2026. SIGNED this 24th day of August, 2026.

ROBERT F. CASTANEDA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Hope Waggoner and Jamie Torres, as individuals and on behalf of V.T., a minor v. The New Mexico Children, Youth & Families Department and Jacob Torres, in his individual capacity, (W.D. Tex. 2026).

Pincite

Hope Waggoner and Jamie Torres, as individuals and on behalf of V.T., a minor v. The New Mexico Children, Youth & Families Department and Jacob Torres, in his individual capacity (Hope Waggoner and Jamie Torres, as individuals and on behalf of V.T., a minor v. The New Mexico Children, Youth & Families Department and Jacob Torres, in his individual capacity) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related