Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-19-50028/USCOURTS-ca5-19-50028-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
City of Austin
Cross-Appellee
Justin Scott
Appellee
Gregory White
Appellant

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-50028

JUSTIN SCOTT, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

OFFICER GREGORY WHITE, also known as Greg White, 

 Defendant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 1:16-CV-1287

Before JOLLY, GRAVES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appellant Sergeant Gregory White appeals from the district court’s order 

denying him summary judgment based on qualified immunity. We DISMISS 

for want of jurisdiction. 

BACKGROUND

Appellee Justin Scott filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against White in 

federal district court, alleging that White violated his Fourth Amendment 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 24, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 19-50028 Document: 00515394052 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/24/2020
No. 19-50028

2

rights to be free from unreasonable search, unreasonable seizure, and the use 

of excessive force, and Fourteenth Amendment right to due process. Scott also 

brought § 1983 claims against the City of Austin, Texas, based on an alleged 

policy and practice of permitting the use of excessive force and an alleged 

failure to adequately train or supervise its officers. 

The district court dismissed each of Scott’s claims except for his excessive 

force claim against White. On that claim, White’s motion for summary 

judgment based on qualified immunity was denied. 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT EVIDENCE1

In February 2015, White, a sergeant with the Austin Police Department,

responded to a 911 call about a suspicious person. On arrival at the scene, 

White saw Scott. White asked Scott several questions, such as whether Scott 

had an identification card and whether he was with anyone else. Scott was 

generally unresponsive. However, when asked whether he had a weapon on 

him, Scott said, “No.” During this exchange, Scott held a circular object with 

both hands at his stomach.2 

After Scott said that he did not have any weapons on him, White moved 

to Scott’s left side and grabbed Scott’s left hand. White did not grab the circular 

object, which Scott continued to hold with his right hand at his stomach. White 

then instructed Scott to drop the circular object. In response, Scott moved his 

1 The facts recounted in this Section are gleaned from the record on appeal, 

particularly an audiovisual recording of the encounter from White’s police vehicle dashcam

and a transcript of the recording. The video may be accessed via the following internet link: 

http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/unpub/19/19-50028.mp4. 2 The Austin Police Department’s General Offense Hardcopy—a type of police report—

regarding the incident includes a supplement to the initial incident report in which Joseph 

Herman Hebbe states that he gathered Scott’s personal belongings and retrieved from the 

scene “a[n] unknown plastic/metallic object approximately 3” to 4” in diameter and .5” in 

height which may have weighed approximately 1 pound.” Hebbe adds, “The unknown object 

was similar in size and shape of a coaster used for drinking glasses.” 

Case: 19-50028 Document: 00515394052 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/24/2020
No. 19-50028

3

right hand from his stomach down to his right side, continuing to hold onto the 

object. The video does not depict Scott actively resisting White’s hold on his 

left hand. It is at this point that White hit Scott’s head or neck from behind, 

grabbed Scott’s abdomen with both hands from behind, pushed Scott onto the 

ground, and rolled on top of Scott. White’s use of force up until this point is his

initial use of force.3 

Once on the ground, Scott twisted and turned underneath White as 

White repeatedly punched, elbowed, and kneed Scott. Contemporaneously, 

Scott covered his head with his hands, screamed, and—at times—curled his 

legs inward. Meanwhile, White repeatedly instructed Scott to put his hands 

behind his back. White then held Scott down and tasered him. As he was 

being tasered, Scott moved his hands onto White’s left arm. 

Afterward, White continued hitting Scott. White then said, “Let go of 

my taser,” punched Scott repeatedly, rolled Scott back onto his stomach, and 

then resumed punching Scott as Scott screamed. (Later, White told another 

officer who arrived on the scene that he “got tased” and that “[Scott] took my 

taser from me and tased me.”)4 White repeated, “Put your hands behind your 

3 There are two distinct times when White uses force: (1) before Scott is on the ground, 

and (2) once Scott is on the ground. To distinguish between these uses of force, we—as did 

the district court—refer to White’s use of force before Scott is on the ground as White’s “initial 

use of force” and White’s uses of force once Scott is on the ground as White’s “subsequent use 

of force.” 

4 During his deposition, Scott stated that, “while I was being tased[,] . . . my hand 

grabbed [White’s] arm at the same time, and it went through him, got him.” When asked 

whether he had the taser in his hand, he said, “yeah, it was in my hand at that point.” But 

when asked why he picked up the taser, he said, “I didn’t pick it up. It was kind of – I don’t 

know how to describe how it happened.” When asked again whether he had the taser in his 

hand, Scott said, “No . . . . I said at one point I grabbed his arm, and he got tased through me. 

. . .” In a recorded interview, Scott also said that he grabbed the taser, but then explained, 

“I don’t – I wasn’t in control, like, at that point. I was just, like – my body was, like shaking. 

Like, I – I was – I was protecting myself.” Scott’s expert Kimberly Bustos, relying in part on 

the video of the incident, interprets Scott’s actions once he was on the ground as defensive 

rather than resistive. Bustos states that it appears that Scott attempted to comply with 

Case: 19-50028 Document: 00515394052 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/24/2020
No. 19-50028

4

back” several times, and Scott said, “I can’t.” White then put his whole body 

on top of Scott and remained on Scott until other officers arrived on the scene. 

White’s use of force once Scott was on the ground is White’s subsequent use of 

force. 

White and Scott were treated for injuries after the incident. White broke 

his right ring finger during his encounter with Scott. White states that he 

“believe[s]” he broke his finger when “we were struggling over my Taser.” 

However, he also states that the broken finger “possibly occurred from 

delivering strikes.”5 Scott complained of throbbing to his forehead, and 

emergency medical services (EMS) personnel noted “various facial abrasions” 

without significant bleeding. EMS personnel also removed a taser probe 

embedded in Scott’s chest. At a hospital after the incident, Scott was diagnosed 

with “[f]acial abrasion” and “[h]ead contusion.” 

STANDARD OF REVIEW

This court has jurisdiction over appeals from a district court’s final 

decision. 28 U.S.C. § 1291. “Ordinarily, we do not have jurisdiction to review 

a denial of a summary judgment motion because such a decision is not final 

within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1291.” Perniciaro v. Lea, 901 F.3d 241, 250 

(5th Cir. 2018) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). But “the 

denial of qualified immunity on a motion for summary judgment is 

immediately appealable if it is based on a conclusion of law.” Id. (citation and 

internal quotation marks omitted). “We have no jurisdiction to hear an 

interlocutory appeal, however, when a district court’s denial of qualified 

immunity rests on the basis that genuine issues of material fact exist.” 

Michalik v. Hermann, 422 F.3d 252, 257 (5th Cir. 2005).

White’s commands, but “it [was] physically impossible for . . . Scott to place his hands behind 

his back,” and “Scott [was] not seen attempting to use the Taser against [White].” 

5 White told other officers, “I was punching the sh[*]t out of [Scott].” 

Case: 19-50028 Document: 00515394052 Page: 4 Date Filed: 04/24/2020
No. 19-50028

5

“Because of this case’s posture, . . . review is limited to determining 

whether the factual disputes that the district court identified are material to 

the application of qualified immunity.” Samples v. Vadzemnieks, 900 F.3d 655, 

660 (5th Cir. 2018) (emphasis omitted). The plaintiff carries the burden to 

rebut the defense of qualified immunity. Brown v. Callahan, 623 F.3d 249, 253 

(5th Cir. 2010). Nonetheless, “[w]e accept the plaintiff’s version of the facts as 

true and review it through the lens of qualified immunity.” Samples, 900 F.3d 

at 660; see also Tolan v. Cotton, 572 U.S. 650, 655–56 (2014) (“[T]he facts [must 

be] taken in the light most favorable to the party asserting the injury[.]”) 

(internal quotation marks, citation, and brackets omitted). “If the defendant 

would still be entitled to qualified immunity under this view of the facts, then 

any disputed fact issues are not material, the district court’s denial of summary 

judgment was improper, and we must reverse; otherwise, the disputed factual 

issues are material and we lack jurisdiction over the appeal.” Lytle v. Bexar 

Cty., 560 F.3d 404, 409 (5th Cir. 2009). Put another way, “[i]f a factual dispute 

must be resolved to make the qualified immunity determination, that fact issue 

is material and we lack jurisdiction over the appeal.” Manis v. Lawson, 585 

F.3d 839, 843 (5th Cir. 2009). The court reviews the materiality of factual 

disputes and the district court’s legal conclusions de novo. Hampton v. 

Oktibbeha Cty. Sheriff Dep’t, 480 F.3d 358, 364 (5th Cir. 2007). 

DISCUSSION

White raises three issues on appeal: whether the district court erred in 

(1) relying on unsupported allegations and evidence outside the summary 

judgment record, (2) holding that Scott’s physical injuries are not categorically

de minimis, and (3) holding that White is not entitled to qualified immunity at 

the summary judgment stage. We address each issue.

First, the court lacks jurisdiction to consider White’s arguments that the 

district court erred in relying on mere allegations and evidence outside the 

Case: 19-50028 Document: 00515394052 Page: 5 Date Filed: 04/24/2020
No. 19-50028

6

summary judgment record. Behrens v. Pelletier, 516 U.S. 299, 313 (1996) 

(“[D]eterminations of evidentiary sufficiency at summary judgment are not

immediately appealable merely because they happen to arise in a qualifiedimmunity case[.]”) (citing Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304, 313–318 (1995)); 

Wagner v. Bay City, 227 F.3d 316, 320 (5th Cir. 2000) (“In deciding an 

interlocutory appeal of a denial of qualified immunity, we can review the 

materiality of any factual disputes, but not their genuineness.”) (emphasis in 

original). 

Second, White’s argument that Scott’s physical injuries are categorically

de minimis as a matter of law is unavailing. White relies on Westfall v. Luna

for this proposition. 903 F.3d 534 (5th Cir. 2018). White reads Westfall too 

broadly. In Sam v. Richard, for example, we held:

Although a de minimis injury is not cognizable, the extent of injury 

necessary to satisfy the injury requirement is directly related to 

the amount of force that is constitutionally permissible under the 

circumstances. Any force found to be objectively unreasonable 

necessarily exceeds the de minimis threshold, and, conversely, 

objectively reasonable force will result in de minimis injuries only.

. . . In short, as long as a plaintiff has suffered some injury, even 

relatively insignificant injuries and purely psychological injuries 

will prove cognizable when resulting from an officer’s 

unreasonably excessive force.

887 F.3d 710, 713 (5th Cir. 2018) (quoting Alexander v. City of Round Rock, 

854 F.3d 298, 309 (5th Cir. 2017)) (emphasis and italics omitted). Accordingly, 

Scott’s physical injuries are not categorically de minimis as a matter of law.6

6 Relatedly, White argues that his initial uses of force caused no injury. But the 

medical records are silent as to the cause of Scott’s injuries and are consistent with Scott’s 

account that the injuries he sustained are related to both White’s initial and subsequent uses 

of force. See Anderson v. McCaleb, 480 F. App’x 768, 772 (5th Cir. 2012) (unpublished) (righthand fracture a plaintiff sustained was “arguably consistent” with the plaintiff’s account that 

the fracture was related to his arrest where the “medical records [were] silent as to the cause 

of the fracture” and additionally showed “an abrasion and contusion” of the plaintiff’s right 

Case: 19-50028 Document: 00515394052 Page: 6 Date Filed: 04/24/2020
No. 19-50028

7

Third, the district court correctly determined that disputes of material 

fact exist, precluding summary judgment. The district court considered the 

totality of the circumstances, construed the evidence in the light most 

favorable to Scott, and viewed Scott’s version of events as a reasonable officer 

on the scene would have to correctly hold that a reasonable jury could

determine that White’s use of force was objectively unreasonable and therefore 

in violation of Scott’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from excessive force. 

See Darden v. City of Fort Worth, 880 F.3d 722, 728–29 (5th Cir. 2018). The 

video evidence does not “utterly discredit[]” Scott’s allegations regarding 

White’s initial and subsequent uses of force such that “no reasonable jury could 

have believed [Scott].” Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007); see also

Carnaby v. City of Houston, 636 F.3d 183, 187 (5th Cir. 2011) (“A court of 

appeals need not rely on [a] description of the facts where the record discredits 

that description but should instead consider the facts in light depicted by the 

videotape.”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 

Further, the district court correctly determined that clearly established 

law at the time of White’s violation prohibited his use of force given the 

circumstances and construing the evidence in the light most favorable to Scott. 

See Kisela v. Hughes, 138 S. Ct. 1148, 1152–53 (2018); see also Darden, 880 

F.3d at 729–32 (describing clearly established law as of May 2013 and stating 

that “a constitutional violation occurs when an officer tases, strikes, or 

violently slams an arrestee who is not actively resisting arrest”); Hanks v. 

Rogers, 853 F.3d 738, 747 (5th Cir. 2017) (describing clearly established law as 

of February 2013 and stating that excessive force is established where an 

officer “abruptly resorts to overwhelming physical force rather than continuing 

wrist, even though the plaintiff said “at the time that the fracture was an old injury”). “At 

this stage and without evidence that blatantly contradicts [Scott’s] account, [we are] required 

to take [Scott’s] version of events as true.” Id. (citing Lytle, 560 F.3d at 409). 

Case: 19-50028 Document: 00515394052 Page: 7 Date Filed: 04/24/2020
No. 19-50028

8

verbal negotiations with an individual who poses no immediate threat or flight 

risk, [and] who engages in, at most, passive resistance”); Trammell v. Fruge, 

868 F.3d 332, 343 (5th Cir. 2017) (holding that “the law [as of January 2013] 

clearly established that it was objectively unreasonable for several officers to 

tackle an individual who was not fleeing, not violent, not aggressive, and only 

resisted by pulling his arm away from an officer’s grasp”) (citing Goodson v. 

City of Corpus Christi, 202 F.3d 730, 740 (5th Cir. 2000)).

Accordingly, issues of material fact exist, and we lack jurisdiction over 

this appeal. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we DISMISS this appeal for want of 

jurisdiction. 

Case: 19-50028 Document: 00515394052 Page: 8 Date Filed: 04/24/2020