individual defendant’s entitlement to qualified immunity separately.” 228 F.3d at 395. Relying on this statement, the district court fashioned a rule that if defendants act in unison, their conduct should be considered collectively. The district court’s finding that the officers acted in unison is a finding of fact that we cannot review at this stage. See Flores v. City of Palacios, 381 F.3d 391, 394 (5th Cir.2004). But even accepting that factual finding, we hold that the district court erred in considering the officers’ actions collectively. The district court’s decision to consider the officers’ actions collectively because it found they acted in unison extends the holding of Jacobs beyond what prudence and case law allows. See Stewart v. Murphy, 174 F.3d 530, 537 (5th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). Further, we have consistently examined the
holding that each defendants actions in a  1983 case must be considered individually holding that only relevant factors must be considered holding that whether illegally seized evidence is sufficiently purged of its taint to be admissible must be answered on the facts of each case and listing factors to be considered holding that each element required under the act must be included in the written notice and each element must be sufficiently clear and accurate  holding that the jury found the ajppellant not guilty of all charges in one case and not guilty of three out of four charges in a second case demonstrating the jury considered each case and each charge separately and did not cumulate the evidence