Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-09-10885/USCOURTS-ca5-09-10885-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-10885

Summary Calendar

ESTATE OF STEVEN EVERETT SHAW; MARK SHAW; ELISANDRA

LOPEZ, as mother and next friend of D.T.S, a minor; DALE ROBERTS

Plaintiffs-Appellants

v.

NICOLAS SIERRA, Police Officer; TODD CAVALIERE, Police Officer

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:08-CV-1737-N

Before DAVIS, SMITH and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The plaintiffs, the Estate of Steven Everett Shaw and various family

members, appeal the dismissal of their action against officers Sierra and

Cavaliere on motion for summary judgment. The district court granted

defendants’ motion on the grounds that they were entitled to qualified immunity.

We affirm. 

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

February 17, 2010

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

 Case: 09-10885 Document: 00511028942 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/17/2010
No. 09-10885

2

I. 

This action arises out of a high speed chase culminating in the use of

deadly force by Officers Sierra and Cavaliere of the Mesquite Police Department

against the decedent, Steven Everett Shaw (“Shaw”). 

The chase began when Officer Caveliere attempted to conduct a traffic stop

after observing Shaw engaging in what he perceived to be suspicious activity.

When Caveliere approached to make the stop, Shaw fled. The resulting chase

extended through three cities. The chase ended when Shaw turned down a dead

end street and drove around a gate into a pasture area. After circling the

pasture, Shaw’s vehicle became lodged on a utility pole guide wire. As the

officers exited their vehicles and approached on foot, Shaw reversed his vehicle,

dislodged it from the wire and then rapidly accelerated forward toward Officer

Cavaliere. Officer Cavaliere was on foot directly in front of Shaw’s vehicle when

Shaw’s vehicle began moving toward him. At that point, Officers Sierra and

Caveliere fired at Shaw and hit him. Shaw died from these gunshot wounds. 

Sierra and Cavaliere assert that they believed Cavaliere was in imminent

danger of death or serious injury from Shaw’s vehicle at the time they fired.

Both parties submitted expert opinion as part of the summary judgment

evidence regarding the reasonableness of this belief. The incident was captured

by the video cameras of four patrol cars on the scene. 

Plaintiffs allege that the defendants used excessive force in violation of

Shaw’s Fourth Amendment rights. The defendants moved for summary

judgment on the grounds that they were entitled to qualified immunity. The

district court granted the motion and the plaintiffs appeal. 

 Case: 09-10885 Document: 00511028942 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/17/2010
No. 09-10885

3

II. 

The central issue in this case is whether the force used by the defendants

was objectively reasonable under the circumstances in light of clearly

established law. Bazan v. Hidalgo Co., 246 F.3d 481, 488 (5th Cir. 2001). To

prevail on an excessive force claim, plaintiffs must establish “(1) 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." Collier v.

Montgomery, 569 F.3d 214, 218 (5th Cir. 2009)(citing Tarver v. City of Edna, 410

F.3d 745, 751 (5th Cir. 2005)). If the defendants’ use of force was reasonable

under the circumstances, no Fourth Amendment violation is established and

plaintiffs’ claims fail. When an officer has probable cause to believe that the

suspect poses an imminent threat of serious physical harm to the officer or

others, deadly force is reasonable. Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1, 11 (1985).

We agree with the district court’s assessment of the record in this case.

“Even when viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff, the facts of this case

do not establish a constitutional violation by Sierra and Cavaliere. . . . At the

time of the incident, the officers reasonably believed that Shaw might run over

Cavaliere. They fired at Shaw to halt this threat. In these circumstances,

Defendants’ use of force was reasonable.” Cases relied on by plaintiffs involving

fleeing suspects are distinguishable. Defendants in this case did not fire at

Shaw during the long car chase while he was fleeing from them. They only fired

when Shaw’s vehicle accelerated toward Cavaliere who was approaching the

vehicle on foot. The videos from the police cars at the scene depict Cavaliere

directly in front of Shaw’s vehicle as Shaw began to accelerate forward.

Accordingly, the district court did not err in concluding that the summary

 Case: 09-10885 Document: 00511028942 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/17/2010
No. 09-10885

4

judgment record revealed that officers in Sierra’s or Cavaliere’s position would

reasonably believe that Cavaliere was in imminent danger of serious physical

injury from being struck by Shaw’s accelerating vehicle. 

We also agree with the district court that the plaintiffs’ expert testimony

is insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact on this issue. Expert

Rodney Jeanis provided no methodology or foundation for his conclusions that

defendants were not in threat of imminent serious physical harm or that the

force used was excessive. In such circumstances, a court need not consider the

expert’s opinion on summary judgment. Celestine v. Petroleos de Venezuella SA,

266 F.3d 343, 357 (5 Cir. 2001). The expert testimony submitted by Shaw’s th

father similarly fails.

Because plaintiffs cannot establish a constitutional violation by the use of

excessive force, we need not proceed to the second prong of the qualified

immunity analysis - whether defendants’ conduct was objectively reasonably

under clearly established law. Hathaway v. Bazany, 507 F.3d 312, 320 (5th Cir.

2007). 

III. 

For the reasons stated above, we agree with the district court that

defendants are entitled to qualified immunity and affirm the district court’s

summary judgment. 

AFFIRMED. 

 Case: 09-10885 Document: 00511028942 Page: 4 Date Filed: 02/17/2010