Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-50642/USCOURTS-ca5-15-50642-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Vincent Fischer
Appellee
Tate Ryan Gresham
Appellant
Howard E. Williams
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-50642

Summary Calendar

TATE RYAN GRESHAM, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

VINCENT FISCHER; HOWARD E. WILLIAMS, 

 Defendants - Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 1:14-CV-739

Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.*

PER CURIAM:**

The judgment of the district court is affirmed for the reasons given by 

the judge. With the clear posture of what Officer Fischer saw on this occasion, 

his behavior was objectively reasonable. This is the qualified immunity officers 

are given by the law. With the benefit of possible view today of this affair, and 

 

* Judge Haynes concurs in the judgment only.

** 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

January 20, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-50642 Document: 00513348979 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/20/2016
No. 15-50642

2

with more thought by the law enforcement officials, a different conduct in some 

respect could be called for. Nonetheless, today we must say that Officer 

Fischer’s conduct was objectively reasonable. It means that injured parties 

cannot argue and litigate about what happened or how they saw the same 

event.

When officers come upon a disturbance as did this officer after 1 a.m. at

Aspen Heights Apartments, it is their duty to get the attention of the people 

then and determine what must be done to obtain peace and legal obedience. It 

is the right and duty for the officer to take control, to direct the movement or

speech of those present as required to reach that peace and legal conduct.

Counsel and the Plaintiff here need to understand this. Judge Yeakel 

pointed out this law, as he did to explain why no claim can be made against 

the City of San Marcos or Chief of Police without evidence of any policy that 

was the moving force behind any constitutional violation.

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 15-50642 Document: 00513348979 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/20/2016