Law360 (June 5, 2026, 5:17 PM EDT) -- The Fifth Circuit has ruled that a man who was shot by police in a case of mistaken identity will not be able to move forward with his civil suit because the officer did not violate his civil rights and is covered by qualified immunity.

In an opinion entered Thursday, a three-judge panel refused to revive a lawsuit brought by Jorge R. Martinez, who alleged his rights were violated when a Laredo, Texas, police officer shot him believing he was a different armed man who had broken into Martinez's home.

"The issue here is whether that officer's mistake led to a violation of the victim's constitutional rights," U.S. Circuit Judge Leslie H. Southwick wrote for the panel." As lamentable as these events certainly were, we agree with the district court that no constitutional violation occurred on the specific facts of this case."

Police in Laredo were responding to a domestic disturbance in November 2019 when Cesar Terrazas, who was armed with an AR-15, began firing at police officers. An officer was injured in the brief gunfight, and Terrazas broke into Martinez's home.

Terrazas shot and wounded Martinez's mother, and at some point Martinez and his sister managed to overpower Terrazas and disarmed him. While the family was inside, police began arriving outside the home, including Laredo police officer David Hinojosa.

Hinojosa was not given any information about the suspect's identity, description or clothing, but after hearing gunfire from Terrazas, the officer retrieved a rifle from his car. After retrieving his gun, Hinojosa then took up what the opinion refers to as a "defensive position" a short distance from Martinez's home, according to court filings.

Martinez sought to exit the home after he disarmed Terrazas, and he exited the house with no clothes on, carrying Terrazas' now unloaded weapon. It is unclear why Martinez was not wearing clothes, though as he exited, he said, Martinez shouted "I am not the shooter" at officers.

Martinez continued walking toward officers while holding the firearm, and Hinojosa shot him in the abdomen, believing he was Terrazas. Hinojosa later said in an interview he feared for his life and the safety of the other officers, as well as the public in the area.

Martinez was severely injured as a result of the gunshot, though he ultimately survived, and sued Hinojosa in federal court in May 2020. He alleged Hinojosa and the Laredo Police Department used excessive force, and that officers were untrained.

The federal district court dismissed Martinez's suit after he had filed three amended complaints and allowed him to refile the action for a fourth time. Martinez refiled, and the city and Hinojosa filed for summary judgment on the grounds of qualified immunity.

A judge agreed that no constitutional violation had occurred as a result of the shooting and that both the city and Hinojosa are entitled to qualified immunity. Martinez appealed the decisino, asserting that the city was not entitled to immunity because the excessive force violation violated a clearly established constitutional right.

The Fifth Circuit found that under U.S. Supreme Court precedent, an excessive force claim can be proven only if a defendant is able to prove that an illegal seizure also occurred. The panel said that because the instant suit was a case of mistaken identity, the shooting counts as a seizure, but that it was not a breach of constitutional rights.

The panel found that because Hinojosa was required to make a "split-second judgment" about whether Martinez was a threat, they cannot "scrutinize that decision" in hindsight. The opinion found that because Hinojosa feared for his safety, the shooting should be covered under qualified immunity rules.

Counsel for Martinez and an attorney representing Hinojosa and Laredo did not respond to requests for comment Friday.

U.S. Circuit Judges Leslie H. Southwick, Stephen A. Higginson and Cory T. Wilson sat for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

Martinez is represented by David L. Flores of Griffith Law Group LLP.

Hinojosa and the city are represented by William Michael McKamie, Lindsey Hale and Alicia K. Kreh of Taylor Olson Adkins Sralla & Elam LLP.

The case is Martinez v. Hinojosa et al., case number 24-40535, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

--Editing by Covey Son.

For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.