Tolan v. Cotton

Citation713 F.3d 299
Decision Date25 April 2013
Docket NumberNo. 12–20296.,12–20296.
PartiesRobert R. TOLAN; Marian Tolan, Plaintiffs–Appellants v. Jeffrey Wayne COTTON, Defendant–Appellee.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Martin Jonathan Siegel, Law Office of Martin J. Siegel, P.C., David H. Berg, Berg & Androphy, George R. Gibson, Nathan Sommers Jacobs, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffsAppellants.

William S. Helfand, Norman Ray Giles, Chamberlain, Hrdlicka, White, Williams & Aughtry, Houston, TX, for DefendantsAppellees.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.

Before JONES, BARKSDALE, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

RHESA HAWKINS BARKSDALE, Circuit Judge.

Primarily at issue in this appeal from a summary judgment is qualified immunity's being granted for a police officer's use of deadly force against a felony suspect, injuring him. This action concerns the various claims of four plaintiffs against numerous defendants; the appeal is from a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) judgment (partial final judgment capable of immediate appeal). This appeal involves only two of the plaintiffs and one of the defendants.

After summary judgment, based on qualified immunity, was awarded police officers Jeffrey Wayne Cotton and John C. Edwards against the four plaintiffs, the Rule 54(b) judgment was entered for the two Officers. Only Robert R. Tolan (Robbie Tolan) and his mother, Marian Tolan, appeal from that judgment, however; and they challenge only the judgment in favor of Sergeant Cotton. In doing so, they contest the underlying summary judgment, based on qualified immunity, awarded Sergeant Cotton against their excessive-force claims. Because no genuine dispute of material fact exists for whether Sergeant Cotton's directing deadly force at Robbie Tolan and non-deadly force at Marian Tolan was objectively unreasonable in the light of clearly-established law, the Rule 54(b) judgment in favor of Sergeant Cotton is AFFIRMED.

I.

For the reasons provided infra, the following facts are presented, as they must be on summary-judgment review, in the light most favorable to Robbie and Marian Tolan.

While patrolling shortly before two o'clock in the morning on 31 December 2008, in Bellaire, Texas, Officer Edwards noticed a black Nissan turn abruptly onto a residential street. Officer Edwards became suspicious immediately because 12 vehicles had been burglarized in Bellaire the previous night, and he knew the street terminated in a cul-de-sac. Surveilling the Nissan from a distance, Officer Edwards observed Robbie Tolan and Anthony Cooper park on the street in front of a house and exit the vehicle. Officer Edwards drove past the vehicle and entered its license-plate number into his mobile data terminal (MDT). Officer Edwards mistakenly keyed an incorrect character; his entry resulted in a match with a stolen vehicle of the same make and approximate year of manufacture. The MDT sent a message automatically to other police units, alerting them Officer Edwards had identified a stolen vehicle.

Officer Edwards next approached the vehicle and, observing Robbie Tolan and Cooper carrying items from the vehicle to the house, illuminated them with his cruiser's spotlight. Officer Edwards exited his cruiser, drew his service pistol and flashlight, identified himself as a police officer, and ordered Robbie Tolan and Cooper to “come here”. When Robbie Tolan and Cooper cursed Officer Edwards and refused to comply, Officer Edwards stated to them his belief the black Nissan was stolen and ordered them onto the ground.

Shortly thereafter, Robbie Tolan's parents, Bobby and Marian Tolan, exited the house through the front door. Again, Officer Edwards stated his belief that Robbie Tolan and Cooper had stolen the Nissan; Robbie Tolan and Cooper complied with Officer Edwards' ordering them onto the ground only after Marian and Bobby Tolan ordered them to do so. Bobby Tolan identified Robbie Tolan as his son, and Marian Tolan stated the Nissan belonged to them. Bobby Tolan yelled at Cooper and Robbie Tolan to stay down; and Marian Tolan walked repeatedly in front of Officer Edwards' drawn pistol, insisting no crime had been committed. Dealing with four people in a chaotic and confusing scene, Officer Edwards radioed for expedited assistance. Sergeant Cotton responded and, hearing the tension in Officer Edwards' voice, believed him to be in danger. Sergeant Cotton arrived approximately one and one-half minutes after Officer Edwards' arrival.

Upon his arrival, Sergeant Cotton observed: Officer Edwards with pistol drawn; Bobby Tolan standing to Officer Edwards' left, next to a sport-utility vehicle parked in the Tolans' driveway, where Officer Edwards had ordered him to stand; Marian Tolan “moving around” in an agitated state in front of Officer Edwards; and Cooper lying prone. Sergeant Cotton drew his pistol and moved in to assist. Although Sergeant Cotton did not immediately observe Robbie Tolan, whose form was obscured by a planter on the front porch, Officer Edwards informed Sergeant Cotton that “the two on the ground had gotten out of a stolen vehicle”. A single gas lamp in front of the house and two motion lights in the driveway illuminated the scene. In his deposition, Sergeant Cotton described the gas lamp as “decorative” and the front porch, where Robbie Tolan was lying, as “fairly dark”; in his deposition, Bobby Tolan stated the gas lamp provided enough light to identify a person in the front yard “within reason”.

Robbie Tolan was lying face-down on the porch, with his head toward the front door and his arms extended. As noted, a planter on the front porch obscured Robbie Tolan's position from Sergeant Cotton's view.

Sergeant Cotton recognized the immediate need to handcuff and search the felony suspects, but Marian Tolan's movement and demeanor frustrated the Officers' doing so; moreover, Marian Tolan continued to insist the car was not stolen, and stated they had lived in the house for 15 years. In an attempt to control the situation, Sergeant Cotton ordered Marian Tolan to move to the garage door; she refused, and became argumentative. Sergeant Cotton again requested Marian Tolan to move out of the Officers' way, and stated the situation would be worked out after they concluded their investigation. Marian Tolan's protestations continued; when Sergeant Cotton ordered her to “get against the garage”, she refused, stating: “Me? Are you kidding?”.

In response, Sergeant Cotton holstered his pistol, clutched Marian Tolan's arm, placed his other hand in the small of her back, and attempted to move her to the garage door. Despite her jerking her arm away and screaming “get your hands off me”, Sergeant Cotton physically moved her to the garage door so a search of Robbie Tolan and Cooper could be conducted. From this angle, Sergeant Cotton then observed Robbie Tolan lying prone and facing away from Sergeant Cotton; the complaint for this action alleges the distance between Sergeant Cotton and Robbie Tolan was approximately 15 to 20 feet.

Sergeant Cotton's method of handling Marian Tolan angered Robbie Tolan; upon seeing his mother pushed into the garage door and hearing a metallic impact, Robbie Tolan yelled “get your fucking hands off my mom!”, pulled his outstretched arms to his torso, and began getting up and turning toward Sergeant Cotton. Fearing Robbie Tolan was reaching towards his waistband for a weapon, Sergeant Cotton drew his pistol and fired three rounds at Robbie Tolan, striking him once in the chest and causing serious internal injury. At the time, Robbie Tolan was wearing a dark zippered jacket, known as a “hoodie”, which was untucked and hung over the top of his trousers, concealing his waistband. A subsequent search revealed Robbie Tolan was unarmed. Between Sergeant Cotton's arriving on the scene and his discharging his pistol, a mere 32 seconds elapsed.

In April 2009, Sergeant Cotton was charged in a state-court indictment with one count of aggravated assault by a public servant. A jury acquitted Sergeant Cotton in May 2010. As noted infra, excerpts from Sergeant Cotton's criminal trial, including testimony by Sergeant Cotton, Officer Edwards, and the Tolans, are in the summary-judgment record.

In May 2009, following Sergeant Cotton's being indicted that April, the Tolans and Cooper filed this action, inter alia, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Sergeant Cotton, Officer Edwards, and the City of Bellaire, claiming, inter alia: Sergeant Cotton and Officer Edwards violated Robbie and Marian Tolan's right to freedom from excessive force (under Fourth Amendment, incorporated in Fourteenth); and both Officers acted in furtherance of a City of Bellaire official policy of racial profiling and discrimination. The Officers invoked qualified immunity in their answer, and, after discovery, moved for summary judgment on that basis.

The district court, in an extremely detailed and well-reasoned opinion, granted the Officers' summary-judgment motion, based on qualified immunity; it held the Tolans and Cooper had not shown a constitutional violation, as required by the first of two prongs for qualified-immunity analysis, discussed infra. Tolan v. Cotton, 854 F.Supp.2d 444, 478 (S.D.Tex.2012). Finding there was “no just reason for delay”, it entered final judgment for the Officers under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b).

II.

For an action involving multiple parties, a district court may enter final judgment for fewer than, inter alia, all parties if it “expressly determines that there is no just reason for delay”. Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b). “If the language in the order appealed from ... reflects the district court's unmistakable intent to enter a partial final judgment under Rule 54(b), nothing else is required to make the order appealable.” Kelly v. Lee's Old Fashioned Hamburgers, Inc., 908 F.2d 1218, 1220 (5th Cir.1990) (en banc). Re-stated, a Rule 54(b) judgment is a final decision capable of immediate appellate review...

To continue reading

Request your trial
43 cases
  • Strong v. Grambling State Univ., 3:13–CV–00808–DEW–KLH.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Louisiana
    • 25 Marzo 2015
    ...the summary judgment burden of proof by requiring the plaintiff to evidence a genuine issue of material fact. See Tolan v. Cotton, 713 F.3d 299, 304 (5th Cir.2013) (citing Michalik v. Hermann, 422 F.3d 252, 262 (5th Cir.2005) ).With the above qualified-immunity standard in mind, the court r......
  • Gerald v. Univ. of S. Miss.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Mississippi
    • 15 Enero 2014
    ...the summary judgment burden of proof by requiring the plaintiff to evidence a genuine issue of material fact. See Tolan v. Cotton, 713 F.3d 299, 304 (5th Cir. 2013) (citing Michalik v. Hermann, 422 F.3d 252, 262 (5th Cir. 2005)). The Individual Defendants have asserted the defense of qualif......
  • E.A.F.F. v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Texas
    • 5 Julio 2013
    ...if so, whether the defendant's conduct was objectively unreasonable in the light of that then clearly established law. Tolan v. Cotton, 713 F.3d 299, 305 (5th Cir.2013). “[A]t least since 1989, it has been clearly established that officials will only be liable for episodic acts or omissions......
  • Shumpert v. City of Tupelo
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Mississippi
    • 6 Noviembre 2017
    ...entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate a clearly established right. Id., 188 L. Ed. 2d 895 (citing Tolan v. Cotton,713 F.3d 299, 306 (5th Cir. 2013), cert. granted, judgment vacated, 134 S. Ct. 1861, 188 L. Ed. 2d 895 (2014), and aff'd in part, vacated in part, remanded, ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • QUALIFIED IMMUNITY: TIME TO CHANGE THE MESSAGE.
    • United States
    • Notre Dame Law Review Vol. 93 No. 5, May 2018
    • 1 Mayo 2018
    ...the benefit of the doubt based on his version of the facts and granted summary judgment based on qualified immunity. Tolan v. Cotton, 713 F.3d 299, 306-08 (5th Cir. 2013), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, 134 S. Ct. (193) Tolan, 134 S. Ct. at 1866; see also Thomas v. Williams, 719 F. App'x 346......
  • EXPLORING THE INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION OF PROCEDURAL RULES: THE PROBLEM OF IMPLICIT AND INSTITUTIONAL RACIAL BIAS.
    • United States
    • University of Pennsylvania Law Review Vol. 169 No. 8, August 2021
    • 1 Agosto 2021
    ...subcommunities did not."). (123) Id. at 864-65. (124) Id. at 867-69. (125) Id. at 867. (126) 854 F. Supp. 2d 444 (S.D. Tex. 2012), aff'd 713 F.3d 299 (5th Cir. 2013). For discussions of the case, see Ed Brunet & John Parry, Guest Post: Brunet and Parry on Tolan v. Cotton, ClV. PROC. &am......
  • Qualified Immunity and Statutory Interpretation
    • United States
    • Seattle University School of Law Seattle University Law Review No. 37-03, March 2014
    • Invalid date
    ...62. 691 F.3d 624 (5th Cir. 2012). 63. Id. at 625. 64. Id. at 625-26. 65. Id. at 626. 66. Id. 67. Id. at 629. 68. See Tolan v. Cotton, 713 F.3d 299 (5th Cir. 2013). 69. Id. at 301-02. 70. Id. at 303. 71. Id. 72. "Most academics and jurists agree, however, that the qualified immunity defense ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT