Lopez v. City of Opa-Locka: Eleventh Circuit Dismisses Officers' Qualified-Immunity Appeal Because Their Arguments "Turn on the Facts, Not the Law"

Nov 2, 2026 · 3 min read · By Brandon J. Grable

Case: Lopez v. City of Opa-Locka, No. 25-12239 (11th Cir. Oct. 30, 2026) (unpublished; per curiam; Newsom, Brasher, and Wilson, JJ.). Appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, No. 1:24-cv-22076-CMA. Read the opinion.

The short version

On October 30, 2026, the Eleventh Circuit, the federal appeals court for Florida, Georgia, and Alabama, dismissed an appeal by two Opa-Locka, Florida police officers for lack of jurisdiction. The trial court had denied the officers summary judgment on qualified immunity and Florida state-law immunity. The appeals court held that it could not review that ruling at this stage because the officers' arguments "turn on the facts, not the law."

The opinion is unpublished. Under Eleventh Circuit Rule 36-2, unpublished opinions "are not considered binding precedent," though they "may be cited as persuasive authority."

What happened

According to the opinion, Yolanda Lopez was on a sidewalk handing out flyers about her business's new location when an officer began to handcuff her while she was on the phone with 911. In her account, the officers tased her twice and arrested her, and the charges were later dismissed. She sued the officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for false arrest and excessive force, and under Florida law for assault and battery and false imprisonment. These facts have not been proved at trial.

The trial court denied the officers' motion in full. It found that the parties "hotly dispute the events surrounding [Lopez]'s arrest" and, taking the facts in the light most favorable to Lopez, ruled that the officers were not entitled to immunity at this stage.

What the court decided

An order generally can be appealed only if it is final or falls within a specific exception, such as the "collateral order doctrine," which sometimes lets officers appeal a qualified-immunity denial right away. But the court explained that when the only issues on appeal concern whether the evidence creates a factual dispute for trial, it lacks jurisdiction.

That is what happened here. The court wrote that the officers "attempt to cast their arguments as legal disputes, but essentially they ask this court to reject the district court's evidentiary findings." Quoting its 2023 decision in English v. City of Gainesville, the court said "[t]he dispute is about what the evidence could prove at trial." The court applied the same reasoning to Florida state-law immunity and dismissed the appeal.

What the court did not decide

The court did not decide whether the officers had probable cause, whether the force was excessive, whether anyone's constitutional rights were violated, or whether the officers will ultimately be entitled to qualified immunity or state-law immunity. It did not reach the merits.

Why this matters in Texas

It is not binding precedent. The opinion is unpublished, so under Eleventh Circuit Rule 36-2 it may be cited only as persuasive authority, and Eleventh Circuit decisions do not bind Texas state courts or federal courts in the Fifth Circuit, which covers Texas. At most, it shows how one federal appeals court handles early appeals of qualified-immunity denials. This post does not address Fifth Circuit law.

If you have questions about an arrest or a use of force by police, talking with a lawyer can help you understand your rights.

Attorney advertising. This post is for general information only. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Every case depends on its own facts, and past results do not guarantee future outcomes.

Attorney responsible for content: Brandon J. Grable, Grable PLLC, 12451 Starcrest Dr, Suite 206, San Antonio, Texas.

Topics: Qualified Immunity