Singleton v. Darby

• Decision Date: 21 May 2015
• Docket Number: No. 14-40040,14-40040
• Parties: BARBARA JEANNETTE SINGLETON, Plaintiff - Appellant v. MICHAEL DARBY, Defendant - Appellee
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)

BARBARA JEANNETTE SINGLETON, Plaintiff - Appellant v. MICHAEL DARBY, Defendant - Appellee

No. 14-40040

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

May 21, 2015

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:12-CV-935

Before DAVIS, DENNIS, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:^*

Plaintiff-Appellant Barbara Jeannette Singleton ("Singleton") filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendant-Appellee Michael Darby ("Darby"). Singleton claims that Darby retaliated against her for exercising her First Amendment rights. She also claims that Darby subjected her to excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Singleton appeals the districtcourt's order granting summary judgment in Darby's favor on both of her claims. We affirm.

I.

On November 19, 2012, citizens opposed to the Keystone XL Pipeline conducted a protest at Farm to Market Road 1911 in Cherokee County, Texas. Approximately eighty people attended the protest, including Singleton, a retired schoolteacher who opposes the pipeline. Although a few of the protestors, including Singleton, were older persons, and a few of the protestors were confined to wheelchairs, a video taken at the protest demonstrates that a large number of the protestors were young and able-bodied.

The Cherokee County Sheriff's Department dispatched a truck carrying a cherry picker to the site of the protest to remove protestors from nearby trees. The Sheriff's Department also dispatched Darby, a deputy sheriff sergeant, to ensure that the protest remained under control.

The truck arrived at the scene first, with Darby following behind in his police car. Some of the protestors, including Singleton, became concerned that the truck was about to run over a young demonstrator. Accordingly, they entered the road and began screaming at the driver to stop. One protestor banged on the hood of the truck, jumped on the vehicle, and opened the door to make the driver stop. Upon witnessing the protestor climb on the truck, Darby exited his vehicle and began walking toward the protestor. Before the protestor reached the driver of the truck, he jumped off the truck and fled.

At some point, the young demonstrator in the path of the oncoming truck stood up and moved out of the way. Several protestors nevertheless remained in or entered the road to prevent the cherry picker from reaching the protestors in the trees. The video shows several protestors leaning against the grill of thetruck and inviting about a dozen other protestors into the road to block the truck's path. Singleton remained in the road during this time.

Darby walked toward the protestors blocking the truck, including Singleton, and ordered them to "[g]et out of the road." The protestors did not obey his command. Approximately five seconds later, Darby leveled a stream of pepper spray toward Singleton and several other protestors in the road. Darby did not spray any of the protestors on the sides of the road who were not obstructing traffic.

Singleton described the burning in her eyes as extremely painful. After Singleton left the protest, she visited her doctor, who treated and released her that same day.

Singleton alleged that Darby violated her constitutional rights under the First and Fourth Amendments by using pepper spray on her. The district court concluded that Darby was entitled to qualified immunity from Singleton's suit, and accordingly granted summary judgment in Darby's favor.

II.

We review a district court's grant of summary judgment de novo.¹ Summary judgment is proper if the record demonstrates no genuine issue as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.²

Although we review evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, we assign greater weight, even at the summary judgment stage, to the facts evident from video recordings taken at the scene. A court of appeals need not rely on the plaintiff's description of the facts where the record discredits that description but should instead consider "the facts in the light depicted by the videotape."³

III.

To survive summary judgment on her First Amendment retaliation claim, Singleton must, among other things, produce sufficient evidence that (1) she was "engaged in constitutionally protected activity;" (2) Darby's actions caused her "to suffer an injury that would chill a person of ordinary firmness from continuing to engage in that activity;" and (3) Darby's adverse actions "were substantially motivated against [her] exercise of constitutionally protected conduct."⁴

We conclude that Singleton failed to demonstrate a genuine dispute of material fact as to the first of these elements. The First Amendment does not entitle a citizen to obstruct traffic or create hazards for others.⁵ A State may therefore enforce its traffic obstruction laws without violating the First Amendment, even when the suspect is blocking traffic as an act of political protest.⁶ The video demonstrates that Singleton and her compatriots were obstructing traffic in violation of Texas law.⁷ Thus, Singleton was not engaging in constitutionally protected activity at the time Darby pepper sprayed her.

The dissent contends that Singleton's earlier protest on the side of the road constitutes the necessary protected activity. But Singleton never made this argument, and for good reason: Singleton was in the street by the time Darby arrived. Darby therefore never witnessed Singleton's protected activity, so there would be no basis for finding he retaliated against that earlier roadside activity if Singleton had raised this claim.

Singleton has likewise failed to create a fact issue on the motivation element. The record fails to show that Darby pepper sprayed the protestors for any reason other than to clear the road and to allow the cherry picker to get through the blockade. Darby did not disturb any of the protestors lawfully exercising their speech and assembly rights along the sides of the road.⁸ Moreover, Darby ordered Singleton and her fellow protestors to "get out of the road," rather than to cease the protest entirely. This affirmatively demonstrates that Darby pepper sprayed Singleton and her group not because they were protesting, but because they were blocking traffic in violation of Texas law.

For these reasons, the district court properly granted summary judgment in Darby's favor on Singleton's First Amendment retaliation claim.

IV.

We now consider Singleton's excessive force claim. To survive summary judgment, Singleton must, inter alia, demonstrate that Darby's use of force was objectively unreasonable under the circumstances and under currentlaw.⁹ "Once we have determined the relevant set of facts and drawn all inferences in favor of the nonmoving party to the extent supportable by the record," the objective reasonableness of Darby's actions "is a pure question of law."¹⁰ The qualified immunity doctrine, "even on summary judgment, 'gives ample room for mistaken judgments by protecting all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.'"¹¹

"'To gauge the objective reasonableness of the force used by a law enforcement officer, we must balance the amount of force used against the need for force,' paying 'careful attention to the facts and circumstances of each particular case.'"¹² Even at the summary judgment stage, "[w]e must evaluate an officer's use of force 'from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.'"¹³ "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."¹⁴

For the following reasons, Darby's use of force was not objectively unreasonable. First, although Singleton's crime was not particularly severe,she was blocking traffic in violation of Texas law,¹⁵ and the State of Texas has an interest in keeping its roads free of obstructions.¹⁶

Secondly, a reasonable officer would have concluded that the protestors posed a threat to Darby, the driver of the truck, the truck itself, or to others. The protestors vastly outnumbered Darby. Darby saw one of the demonstrators climb onto the truck, bang on its hood, and open the truck's door. The video shows several young protestors leaning against the grill of the truck and inviting other protestors to block the vehicle. Because numerous other protestors remained crowded around the truck, a reasonable officer could have believed that other protestors might climb on the truck or attack the driver. A reasonable officer in Darby's position could have reasonably concluded that the protestors were out of control and that the situation required definitive action to move the truck past the demonstrators and out of danger.

Third, Singleton and her compatriots resisted Darby's attempt to clear the road. Singleton admits that she heard Darby's warning before he pepper sprayed her group. The video demonstrates that Darby gave Singleton sufficient time to at least begin walking out of the road before he deployed the pepper spray. Singleton nevertheless did not move. Although Singleton testified in her deposition that Darby did not give her enough time to react, we must credit the video evidence over Singleton's contrary testimony.¹⁷

Thus, Darby, as a reasonable officer, was justified in using some degree of force to clear the road. The force Darby employed was not disproportionate to the need. Deploying pepper spray was not an unreasonable way to defusethe situation. Indeed, it was probably the least intrusive means available to Darby. To reiterate, the protestors vastly outnumbered Darby. As one of only two police officers on the scene,¹⁸ Darby could not have individually handcuffed and arrested each of the numerous protestors blocking the road. In addition to the...