Craig v. Martin
| Decision Date | 08 September 2022 |
| Docket Number | 19-10013 |
| Citation | 49 F.4th 404 |
| Parties | Jacqueline CRAIG, Individually and on behalf of minors J.H., K.H., AND A.C.; Brea Hymond, Plaintiffs—Appellees, v. William D. MARTIN, Defendant—Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
49 F.4th 404
Jacqueline CRAIG, Individually and on behalf of minors J.H., K.H., AND A.C.; Brea Hymond, Plaintiffs—Appellees,
v.
William D. MARTIN, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 19-10013
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
FILED September 8, 2022
Matthew J. Kita, Dallas, TX, Daryl Kevin Washington, Esq., Attorney, Law Offices of Daryl K. Washington, P.C., Dallas, TX, for Plaintiffs-Appellees.
Kenneth E. East, Esq., Fort Worth, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Patrick M. Jaicomo, Institute for Justice, Arlington, VA, for Amicus Curiae Institute for Justice.
Savannah Kumar, Andre Segura, American Civil Liberties Union of Texas, Houston, TX, for Amici Curiae American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Texas.
Jay Remington Schweikert, Cato Institute, Washington, DC, for Amicus Curiae Cato Institute.
Robin Eve Wechkin, Issaquah, WA, for Amicus Curiae Howard University School of Law Civil Rights Clinic.
Before Richman, Chief Judge, and Barksdale and Duncan, Circuit Judges.
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC
Priscilla Richman, Chief Judge:
The petition for rehearing en banc has been denied. We withdraw the prior opinion that issued February 15, 2022, and substitute the following opinion.
This case concerns the denial of qualified immunity to a police officer. Jacqueline Craig and four of her children sued Officer William D. Martin, asserting claims for unlawful arrest, bystander injury, and
excessive use of force.1 The district court denied Martin's motion for summary judgment on the excessive force claims on qualified immunity grounds.2 This interlocutory appeal followed.3 We reverse the district court's denial of qualified immunity on the excessive force claims and render judgment in Martin's favor as to those claims. We express no opinion regarding the district court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' other claims, which are not part of this appeal.
I
On December 21, 2016, Officer Martin received a call dispatching him to a "disturbance" in the South Division of Fort Worth.4 The initial 9-1-1 call came from a middle-aged male, stating that several people were on his property arguing, had refused to leave, and were intentionally throwing trash in his yard.5 A subsequent 9-1-1 call came from the man's neighbor, Jacqueline Craig, complaining that the man had grabbed her son by the neck because the boy had allegedly littered.6
Martin responded to the call alone.7 He activated his body camera as soon as he arrived at the scene.8 One of Craig's daughters, Brea Hymond, also recorded the event on her cell phone.9 We detail the record evidence as to what transpired during Martin's encounter with Craig and her children in analyzing each of their respective claims.
As a result of the incident, Craig, individually and on behalf of her minor children J.H. and K.H., and Hymond (collectively plaintiffs) sued Martin for unlawful arrest and excessive use of force.10 Craig also sued Martin on behalf of her minor child A.C., alleging injuries suffered as a bystander to the incident.11 The district court dismissed A.C.'s claim as incognizable; it dismissed all of the remaining plaintiffs' claims for unlawful arrest, holding Martin was entitled to qualified immunity as to those claims.12 Martin later moved for summary judgment on the remaining excessive force claims, but the district court denied Martin qualified immunity, concluding that the video evidence submitted by Martin was "too uncertain" to determine whether he was entitled to qualified immunity as to those claims.13 Martin's interlocutory appeal accordingly concerns only the excessive force issue.
II
"The denial of a motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity is immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine ‘to the extent that it turns on an issue of law.’ "14 "[W]e can
review the materiality of any factual disputes, but not their genuineness. "15
"We review the materiality of fact issues de novo. "16 When the district court does not specify what fact issues precluded a grant of summary judgment, as is the case here,17 "[w]e can either scour the record and determine what facts the plaintiff may be able to prove at trial and proceed to resolve the legal issues, or remand so that the trial court can clarify the order."18 Given the limited record in this case and the availability of video evidence capturing the incident, we have reviewed the record rather than remanding, in order to "resolv[e] immunity questions at the earliest possible stage in litigation."19
Normally, "[t]he plaintiff's factual assertions are taken as true to determine whether they are legally sufficient to defeat the defendant's motion for summary judgment."20 However, if there is video evidence that "blatantly contradict[s]" the plaintiffs' allegations, the court should not adopt the plaintiffs' version of the facts; instead, the court should view those facts "in the light depicted by the videotape."21 At oral argument, plaintiffs' counsel acknowledged that the uses of force at issue are captured in the video evidence.22
Once a defendant properly pleads qualified immunity, the burden of proof shifts to the plaintiffs to negate the defense.23 To meet this burden, the plaintiffs must establish "(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct."24
The plaintiffs allege that Martin's use of force violated their Fourth Amendment right to be free from excessive force during a seizure.25 To prevail on a Fourth Amendment excessive force claim, a plaintiff must show "(1) an injury (2) which resulted directly and only from a use of force that was clearly excessive, and (3) the excessiveness of which was clearly unreasonable."26 "Excessive force claims are necessarily fact intensive; whether the force used is ‘excessive’ or ‘unreasonable’ depends on ‘the facts and circumstances of each particular case.’ "27
"The ‘reasonableness’ of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight."28 "Factors to consider include ‘the severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and whether [the suspect] is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight.’ "29 "The calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments—in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving—about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation."30 Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, Martin's use of force against each plaintiff was not objectively unreasonable.
A
We first consider Martin's use of force against Craig. When Martin arrived at the scene, he spoke with the male complainant; Martin then approached Craig to obtain her version of the events.31 Craig told Martin that the man had grabbed her son, A.C., after A.C. had allegedly littered.32 In response, Martin asked: "Why don't you teach your son not to litter?"33 Craig, visibly agitated, told Martin that it did not matter whether her son had littered, asserting that the man did not have the right to put his hands on her son.34 Martin replied: "Why not?"35
Craig started to shout at Martin after this provocation.36 Martin asked why she was shouting at him, to which Craig responded: "Because you just pissed me off telling me what I teach my kids and what I don't."37 Martin replied in a calm voice: "If you keep yelling at me, you're going to piss me off, and I'm going to take you to jail."38 Immediately after this exchange, J.H., Craig's fifteen-year-old daughter, stepped between Craig and Martin and put her hands on Craig's forearms.39 Martin grabbed J.H. and pulled her away from her mother.40
Moments later, K.H., Craig's fourteen-year-old daughter, began to walk around Martin's right side; K.H. then pushed Martin in the left side of his back, using most—if not all—of her body weight.41 Martin pulled his taser and yelled, "Get on the ground!"42 Martin then allegedly "shov[ed]" his taser into the middle of
Craig's back.43 Although Craig initially pled that Martin then "threw her to the ground,"44 Craig's affidavit states that Martin "shov[ed]" her to the ground.45 Craig claims that, as she was going to the ground, her "left arm and shoulder blade [were] still suspended in [Martin's] grip—causing [her] severe pain."46 The video does not show any throwing or slamming motion; however, it does show Martin pushing Craig to the ground while maintaining a hold on Craig's left arm and releasing it as she slowly descends to the ground.47 Martin then handcuffed Craig.48
Under the circumstances, it was not objectively unreasonable for Martin to grab Craig and force her to the ground to effectuate her arrest. Martin was the only police officer at the scene, he had just been pushed from behind, and he was facing numerous people who were shouting and jostling as he attempted to separate Craig from the crowd and arrest her.
B
After Martin handcuffed Craig, he walked over to J.H.49 As recounted above, before Martin arrested Craig, J.H. stepped between Craig and Martin and put her hands on Craig's forearms.50 Martin pulled J.H. away from her mother,51 and after K.H. pushed Martin in the side, Martin ordered all of them to "get on the ground."52 After Martin arrested Craig, he again shouted, "Get on the ground."53 J.H., who was initially still standing, squatted to the ground as Martin moved closer to her.54 Martin approached her, grabbed her left arm and the back of her neck, and placed her on the ground.55
Martin then walked Craig and J.H. to his vehicle.56 As Martin approached the rear passenger door of the vehicle, K.H. appeared from behind the back of the vehicle.57 She stood in front of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Robinson v. Best
... ... Amendment. See, e.g., Bond, 142 S.Ct. at 11; ... Graham. 490 T LS. at 396-97; Craig v, ... Martin, 49 F.4th 404,411-12 (5th Cir. 2022) (holding ... that a police officer who took a resisting handcuffed suspect ... ...
-
Johnson v. The City of San Antonio
... ... controlling precedent that squarely governs the specific ... facts at issue." Craig v. Martin , 49 F.4th 404, ... 419 (5th Cir. 2022) (citation and internal quotation marks ... omitted). Roberts has not carried her ... ...
-
Gorsky v. Guajardo
... ... genuineness ." Wagner v. Bay City , 227 ... F.3d 316, 320 (5th Cir. 2000); accord Craig v ... Martin , 49 F.4th 404, 408-09 (5th Cir. 2022) ... Thus, where officers' QI depends on the resolution of ... genuine factual ... ...
-
Perkins v. Harris
... ... the most generous reading of Plaintiff's vague ... allegations. See , e.g ., Craig v ... Martin , 49 F.4th 404, 419 (5th Cir. 2022) (relying on ... differences in the severity of the force the officer used in ... ...