Paz v. Hayden: Failure to Rebut Qualified Immunity Bars §1983 Illegal Search Claims

Introduction

In Paz v. Hayden, No. 24-20226 (5th Cir. June 6, 2025), Richard Allen Paz sued a group of Texas law-enforcement officers under 42 U.S.C. §1983, alleging that they conducted an illegal search of the rented premises in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. Paz sought nominal, compensatory, and punitive damages, plus injunctions against future searches. The officers moved for summary judgment asserting qualified immunity. Paz did not file any response to that motion. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the officers, holding that Paz failed to carry his burden to negate qualified immunity and that he nonetheless had standing to pursue at least nominal damages for an unconstitutional search.

Summary of the Judgment

1. The Fifth Circuit assumed Paz’s version of events for summary‐judgment purposes: officers pried wooden slats from a backyard fence and entered with guns drawn, allegedly fabricating a shotgun sighting to justify the intrusion.

2. Officers arrested Paz only after obtaining a search warrant for cameras and discovering outstanding warrants—facts irrelevant to the search‐validity inquiry.

3. Paz failed to respond to the qualified‐immunity motion. Under Fifth Circuit precedent, once officers raise qualified immunity at summary judgment, the plaintiff bears the burden of showing a genuine fact issue both as to violation of a federal right and its clear establishment at the time.

4. The panel held that Paz did not identify evidence or case law showing that the officers violated a clearly established constitutional right; therefore, summary judgment was proper.

5. On standing, the court confirmed that an illegal search constitutes a concrete constitutional injury entitling Paz to at least nominal damages—but that he lacked standing for injunctive relief absent a credible threat of future intrusion.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007): Courts must view facts in the light most favorable to the non‐moving party at summary judgment.
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992): Set out the Article III standing elements—injury in fact, traceability, and redressability.
TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U.S. 413 (2021) and United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012): Recognized intangible harms (including illegal searches) as concrete injuries.
Green v. McKaskle, 788 F.2d 1116 (5th Cir. 1986): A plaintiff need only show a Fourth Amendment violation to obtain nominal damages.
McClendon v. City of Columbia, 305 F.3d 314 (5th Cir. 2002, en banc): Placed burden on plaintiff to negate qualified immunity once asserted and briefed.
Hibernia Nat’l Bank v. Administracion Cent. Sociedad Anonima, 776 F.2d 1277 (5th Cir. 1985): Clarified that summary judgment cannot rest merely on a lack of opposition—but the court must still analyze the merits.

2. Legal Reasoning

The Fifth Circuit’s opinion turned on two pillars:

Standing for an Illegal Search Claim: The court independently confirmed Article III jurisdiction. It found that an unlawful search is a “concrete, particularized” injury giving rise to at least nominal damages under Supreme Court and Fifth Circuit precedent. That satisfied injury‐in‐fact and redressability; Paz’s request for ongoing relief failed for lack of future risk.
Qualified Immunity and Plaintiff’s Burden: Once defendants moved for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds, Paz bore the dual burden to demonstrate (a) a constitutional violation on these facts and (b) that the right was clearly established. Because Paz filed no opposition or evidence, he offered no authority or fact evidence showing that prying fence slats and entering with guns drawn violated a clearly established Fourth Amendment rule. The panel thus granted summary judgment for the officers.

3. Impact on Future Cases

• This decision reinforces that plaintiffs must actively respond to qualified‐immunity motions. Silence or lack of cited authority will likely compel summary judgment for officers.

• It underscores that illegal searches, even without physical damage or post-search prosecution, remain actionable for nominal damages under §1983.

• The court’s standing analysis clarifies that injunctive relief requires a concrete threat of future illegal searches; past-only misconduct does not suffice.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Qualified Immunity: A doctrine that shields government officials from lawsuits unless they violated a constitutional right that was “clearly established” at the time. At summary judgment, once officials assert it, the plaintiff must show both a constitutional violation and that the law was clear.
Standing: The legal threshold requiring a plaintiff to show they suffered a real, concrete injury traceable to the defendants and that a favorable court ruling can redress that injury.
Nominal Damages: A small sum (often one dollar) awarded when a plaintiff establishes a violation of a legal right but cannot prove concrete monetary loss. Under §1983 and Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, nominal damages vindicate constitutional rights.
Summary Judgment: A procedural device that ends litigation without a trial if no genuine issues of material fact exist and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Conclusion

Paz v. Hayden crystallizes two crucial points in §1983 Fourth Amendment litigation. First, an illegal search itself suffices for Article III standing and entitles a plaintiff to nominal damages. Second, once officers invoke qualified immunity at summary judgment, the plaintiff cannot simply remain silent—he must point to evidence and controlling cases showing both a constitutional violation and clear‐law notice. Failure to do so will result in dismissal of the claim. This decision will guide litigants and lower courts in structuring responses to qualified‐immunity motions and assessing standing for non‐physical search claims.