## Facts

- Florentino and Elizabeth Martinez (with Elizabeth’s minor daughter) drove a pickup owned by Ramiro Reyes from Texas to Alabama on Interstate 12 in Louisiana.
- Louisiana State Trooper Carl Sazan stopped the truck despite plaintiffs’ account that they were driving under the speed limit.
- Sazan required Florentino to exit, produce license and registration, and stand in cold rain while Sazan checked the vehicle; Sazan issued a warning citation for “following too closely,” which plaintiffs contended was unfounded.
- Florentino denied possessing drugs or weapons but signed a consent-to-search form; Sazan ordered Elizabeth and the child out and required them to remain in the rain, refusing a request to retrieve a jacket for the child.
- A second trooper arrived with a drug dog and searched the truck; plaintiffs asserted the dog’s alert was induced by the handler. No contraband was found.
- Sazan required plaintiffs to follow him to police headquarters for a more intrusive search, during which plaintiffs alleged the truck suffered over $2,000 in damage; no contraband was found and no charges were filed.
- Plaintiffs alleged the stop and search were part of a practice of targeting Hispanics through selective traffic enforcement.
- Plaintiffs sued Sazan and supervisory Louisiana State Police officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law; defendants raised qualified immunity and Eleventh Amendment defenses.
- The district court denied qualified immunity without ordering a tailored reply to the immunity defense and permitted the case to proceed; defendants appealed in an interlocutory posture.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying qualified immunity without requiring a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7(a) reply addressing the qualified-immunity defense with particularized facts.
2. Whether the Eleventh Amendment bars state-law damages claims in federal court against state officers sued in their individual capacities.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit vacated the denial of qualified immunity and remanded.
- The court held the district court abused its discretion by failing to require a Rule 7(a) reply once qualified immunity was asserted and by treating the complaint as sufficiently specific without such a reply.
- The court held the Eleventh Amendment did not bar plaintiffs’ state-law claims against the defendants in their individual capacities.

## Legal Principles

- Qualified immunity is immunity from suit, so courts must address it at the earliest practicable stage and ensure pleadings contain specific, defendant-by-defendant factual allegations that, if proven, would show a violation of clearly established law.
- When a defendant pleads qualified immunity, a district court should use Rule 7(a), when needed, to order a reply that “engages” the immunity defense with particularized factual content; conclusory allegations (including conclusory conspiracy or discrimination assertions) are inadequate.
- The Eleventh Amendment generally bars damages claims against states and state officials in their official capacities, but it does not bar damages claims against state officials sued in their individual capacities.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit required procedural rigor when qualified immunity is raised, directing the district court to demand a specific Rule 7(a) reply and to reassess immunity based on particularized allegations, while permitting individual-capacity state-law claims to proceed notwithstanding the Eleventh Amendment.


Reyes v. Sazan, 168 F.3d 158 (5th Cir. 1999)