Angie Waller, et al. v. Richard Hoeppner, et al.

Does the Fifth Circuit’s “narrowed” test of reasonableness of a search or seizure under the Fourth Amendment, which deems as irrelevant any of the officer’s actions leading up to the moment of the use of force or the execution of the search, conflict with the decisions of this Court in Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985) and Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989), holding that the reasonableness of a search or seizure requires consideration of the “totality of the circumstances”?

Did the Fifth Circuit decide an important question of federal law that should be but has not been settled by this Court in refusing to apply proximate cause as the measure of causation in assessing municipal liability under Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of the City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978), as this Court held applied to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Fourth Amendment issues in County of Los Angeles v. Mendez, 581 U.S. 420 (2017)?

In rejecting jurisdiction to review the district court’s denial of plaintiffs’ properly pled illegal search claims against defendants Hoeppner and the City of Fort Worth, did the Fifth Circuit violate the fundamental basis of federal appellate jurisdiction required by the Judicial Act of 1789, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1789), confining appeals to final decisions, and this Court’s decisions in Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1995), and United States v. American Railway Express Co., 265 U.S. 425 (1924)?

By the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1871 (42 U.S.C. § 1983) (popularly known as the Ku Klux