IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-31078

DARNELL RANDLE, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

MIKE TREGRE, individually and in his official capacity as the Sheriff for St. 

John the Baptist Parish; ST. JOHN THE BAPTIST PARISH LAW 

ENFORCEMENT DISTRICT, State of Louisiana; SIDNEY TRICHE, 

individually and in his official capacity as a Deputy Sheriff for St. John the 

Baptist Parish; WALTER R. CHAPPEL, individually and in his official 

capacity as a Commander Sheriff or employee for St. John the Baptist Parish; 

TRAVIS THOMAS, individually and in his official capacity as a Detective for 

St. John the Baptist Parish; HARDY SCHEXNAYDER, individually and in his 

official capacity as a Detective Sergeant for St. John the Baptist Parish; 

JONATHAN E. RIVET, individually and in his official capacity as a Narcotics 

Detective for St. John the Baptist Parish; JUSTIN W. BORDELON, 

individually and in his official capacity as a Detective for St. John the Baptist 

Parish; ANTHONY J. GOUDIA, individually and in his official capacity as a 

Detective for St. John the Baptist Parish; HEATHER A. CRUSE, individually 

and in her official capacity as a Deputy for St. John the Baptist Parish, 

 Defendants - Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Louisiana 

USDC No. 2:15-CV-395

Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and SMITH and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

November 3, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-31078 Document: 00513744960 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/03/2016
No. 15-31078

2

PER CURIAM:*

Plaintiff-Appellant Darnell Randle appeals the district court’s grant of 

summary judgment for Defendant Justin Bordelon. As relevant here, Randle 

filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that Bordelon, a sheriff’s office

detective, violated his rights under the Fourth Amendment by using excessive 

force in order to extract narcotics that Randle was hiding in his mouth. 

Specifically, Randle contends that Bordelon punched him several times in the 

face, used a flashlight to hit him in the face and to pry open his mouth, and

utilized a sleeper hold on him, all after he had been placed in handcuffs. 

The district court granted summary judgment, holding that Bordelon 

was entitled to qualified immunity. The court concluded that there was no 

evidence that Bordelon punched Randle or hit him with the flashlight. The 

district court further determined that Bordelon’s use of the sleeper hold and 

the flashlight to retrieve the narcotics did not constitute excessive force under 

the Fourth Amendment. Finally, the court concluded that even assuming 

Bordelon’s actions constituted excessive force in violation of the Fourth 

Amendment, they did not violate clearly established law. 

“We review the district court’s summary judgment decision de novo, 

using the same standard as the district court.” Roberts v. City of Shreveport, 

397 F.3d 287, 291 (5th Cir. 2005). Summary judgment is appropriate if the 

record discloses “no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is 

entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a). A dispute is 

genuine if the summary judgment “evidence is such that a reasonable jury

could return a verdict for the [non-movant].” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 

 

* 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.

 Case: 15-31078 Document: 00513744960 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/03/2016
No. 15-31078

3

477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). “Once defendants assert the qualified immunity 

defense, ‘[t]he plaintiff bears the burden of negating qualified immunity . . . 

but all inferences are drawn in his favor.’” Brauner v. Coody, 793 F.3d 493, 

497 (5th Cir. 2015) (quoting Brown v. Callahan, 623 F.3d 249, 253 (5th Cir. 

2010) (citation omitted)). To overcome qualified immunity, a plaintiff must 

show that (1) the defendant’s conduct violated a federal right and (2) the right 

in question was clearly established at the time of the violation. See Tolan v. 

Cotton, 134 S. Ct. 1861, 1865-66 (2014); Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201 

(2001). 

Here, Randle makes no meaningful attempt to argue that Bordelon’s

actions violated clearly established law at the time of the incident. He has thus

forfeited any argument in this respect. See, e.g., United States v. Thompson, 

735 F.3d 291, 298 n.17 (5th Cir. 2013) (insufficiently briefed issue is forfeited). 

We therefore need not decide whether the district court erred in determining 

that Bordelon did not strike Randle and that his actions did not violate the 

Fourth Amendment. Accordingly, the district court’s grant of summary 

judgment in favor of Bordelon is AFFIRMED. 

 Case: 15-31078 Document: 00513744960 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/03/2016