Mondragon v. Archuleta

Opinion

Appellate Case: 25-2043 Document: 52-1 Date Filed: 07/15/2026 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT July 15, 2026 _______________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court MARK MONDRAGON, o.b.o. D.M., a minor child, SARAH MONTOYA, o.b.o. L.M., a minor child, and ANGELA SALAZAR, o.b.o. J.M., a minor child,

Plaintiffs - Appellees, No. 25-2043 (D.C. Nos. 1:21-CV-00427-KK-JMR, v. 1:21-CV-00648-KK-JMR, 1:21-CV-00751-KK-JMR) GEORGE ARCHULETA, (D. N.M.)

Defendant - Appellant,

and

RIO RANCHO PUBLIC SCHOOLS BOARD OF EDUCATION,

Defendants. _______________________________________

ORDER * _______________________________________

Before BACHARACH, EBEL, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. _______________________________________

In this appeal, we address appellate jurisdiction over a challenge to

the denial of qualified immunity.

* Oral argument would not help us decide the appeal, so we have decided the appeal based on the record and the parties’ briefs. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2)(C); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). Appellate Case: 25-2043 Document: 52-1 Date Filed: 07/15/2026 Page: 2

The case began when three male high-school students sued

Mr. George Archuleta (a security aide) for violating the Fourth

Amendment, claiming that he had touched the students’ genitals through

their pants during a search. Mr. Archuleta denied touching the students’

genitals and sought summary judgment based on qualified immunity. The

district court denied summary judgment, reasoning that a jury could

justifiably find that Mr. Archuleta had deliberately touched the students’

genitals for his own personal gratification. Mr. Archuleta appeals, arguing

that he enjoys qualified immunity because he acted reasonably in

conducting the searches and didn’t deliberately touch the genitals.

We ordinarily lack jurisdiction over a denial of summary judgment

because the decision is not considered final. Ortiz v. Jordan, 562 U.S. 180,

188 (2011). An exception exists for a denial of qualified immunity.

Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304, 311–12 (1995). But even for qualified

immunity, we can consider only abstract issues of law. Lewis v. Tripp, 604

F.3d 1221, 1225 (10th Cir. 2010). 1

1 Exceptions exist when

• the district court fails to identify the facts supporting a plaintiff ’s claims or

• the court’s factual conclusions blatantly contradict the record.

Lewis, 604 F.3d of 1225–26. But Mr. Archuleta doesn’t invoke either exception. 2 Appellate Case: 25-2043 Document: 52-1 Date Filed: 07/15/2026 Page: 3

Given this limitation, we lack jurisdiction to consider the denial of

qualified immunity when the defendant “dispute[s] the facts a district court

determines a reasonable juror could find.” Ralston v. Cannon, 884 F.3d

1060, 1067 (10th Cir. 2018). So when a defendant challenges the denial of

qualified immunity based on his own version of the facts, we lack

jurisdiction. Duda v. Elder, 7 F.4th 899, 909–10 (10th Cir. 2021).

On appeal, Mr. Archuleta asserts that he didn’t violate a clearly

established right because he didn’t intentionally touch the students’

genitals. For example, Mr. Archuleta makes three arguments:

1. The district court’s application of “strip search” case law to find a “clearly established” violation in the instant case was error as it was not a clearly established violation of the Fourth Amendment to conduct an over-the-clothing student pat-down search justified at its inception, including the search of pockets, where Defendant Archuleta may have inadvertently or incidentally touched a student’s genitals. (Appellant’s Opening Br. at 12 (emphasis added)).

2. This logically leads to the conclusion that Plaintiffs never identified, nor did the district court find, clearly established case law establishing that conducting an over- the-clothing student pat-down search that was justified at its inception, including the search of pockets, where Defendant Archuleta may have inadvertently or incidentally touched a student’s genitals, was unlawful. (Appellant’s Opening Br. at 23–24 (emphasis added)).

3. If there is no consensus on case law for school strip searches, as found by the Supreme Court in Safford [Unified Sch. Dist. No. 1 v. Redding, 557 U.S. 364 (2009)], the law is not clearly established for over the clothing, pat down searches of students that may involve temporary

3 Appellate Case: 25-2043 Document: 52-1 Date Filed: 07/15/2026 Page: 4

touching of male genitalia. (Appellant’s Opening Br. at 25– 26).

These arguments for qualified immunity rest on a factual dispute; and

the district court concluded that a reasonable jury could find that

Mr. Archuleta had deliberately touched the genitals for his own personal

gratification. Appellant’s App’x vol. 3, at 600, 604, 607–608, 610, 613–

614. Despite his factual arguments, Mr. Archuleta doesn’t question the

clarity of a constitutional violation under the district court’s determination

about what a reasonable jury could find. 2

Granted, Mr. Archuleta does question the district court’s application

of the test for qualified immunity. For example, Mr. Archuleta argues that

the district court

• overread Safford Unified Sch. Dist. No. 1 v. Redding, 557 U.S. 364 (2009) to determine what constitutes a clearly established right,

• shouldn’t have applied a sliding scale to a clearly established violation absent a previous case with similar facts, and

• improperly discounted Mr. Archuleta’s reasons for thinking that the students had been in a gang.

2 In his reply brief, Mr. Archuleta included arguments involving the clarity of a violation when a sexual assault takes place during a school search. But Mr. Archuleta waived these arguments by omitting them from his opening brief. United States v. Beckstead, 500 F.3d 1154, 1162 (10th Cir. 2007).

4 Appellate Case: 25-2043 Document: 52-1 Date Filed: 07/15/2026 Page: 5

Appellant’s Opening Br. at 20–26, 29–31. But Mr. Archuleta doesn’t argue

that he would be entitled to qualified immunity if he had touched the

students’ genitals for his own personal gratification. He instead relies on

his own version of the facts. So we lack jurisdiction and dismiss the

appeal. Duda v. Elder, 7 F.4th 899, 916–17 (10th Cir. 2021).

Entered for the Court

Robert E. Bacharach Circuit Judge