Wertenbroch v. Hardeman

── Wertenbroch v. Hardeman ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Date: June 03, 2026 Category: Civil Rights Case: 25-40616 Document: 45-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/03/2026 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED No. 25-40616 June 3, 2026 ____________ Lyle W. Cayce Patrica Anna Wertenbroch; Kulwant Singh Atwal, Clerk Plaintiffs—Appellees, versus Clint Hardeman, City Manager, City of Pittsburg, Texas, Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 2:24-CV-1075 ______________________________ Before Clement, Southwick, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges. Edith Brown Clement, Circuit Judge: Does an appellate court have jurisdiction under the collateral-order doctrine to review a district court order that denies a Rule 12(b)(6) motion for failure to state a claim—the substantive basis of the disposition—but does not expressly address or resolve a defendant’s qualified immunity defense? I Plaintiffs-Appellees Patricia Anna Wertenbroch and Kulwant Singh Atwal brought this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendant-Appellant Clint Hardeman, in his individual and official capacity Case: 25-40616 Document: 45-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/03/2026 No. 25-40616 as City Manager for the City of Pittsburg, Texas. Plaintiffs allege that the City Manager’s Office racially discriminated against them in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by failing to investigate reported crimes on their properties, listing their properties on the market without their consent, and unequally enforcing the city code against them. Hardeman moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), asserting that Plaintiffs (1) failed to state a plausible equal protection claim, (2) were barred from asserting their claim against the Camp County Central Appraisal District, (3) failed to assert a viable Monell claim against the City of Pittsburg, (4) failed to plead any personal involvement by Hardeman in his individual capacity, and (5) failed to plead any facts that would plausibly deny Hardeman qualified immunity. The motion to dismiss was referred to a magistrate judge, who issued a report and recommendation (“R&R”) that offered only the following reasoning: After a careful review of the complaint and Plaintiffs’ response . . ., the Court finds that the Motion should be DENIED. The Court finds that the allegations in the complaint along with all inferences taken in favor of Plaintiffs—while undoubtedly thin—make out a plausible claim for an equal protection violation under the Fourteenth Amendment. The magistrate judge did not address Hardeman’s qualified immunity defense in his R&R. Hardeman timely objected to the R&R, raising the magistrate judge’s “failure to rule on his qualified immunity defense” as the first of six objections. The district court overruled his objections and adopted the R&R. That order, too, never mentioned qualified immunity. Hardeman timely appealed. 2 Case: 25-40616 Document: 45-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/03/2026 No. 25-40616 II Although the parties have