### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14

- 10759

CORDELL DAVIS, Individually; ANTOINETTE TURNER, as next friend J. T. T., a minor,

Plaintiffs

- Appellants

v.

CITY OF FORT WORTH,

Defendant

- Appellee

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ LESLEE MARIE MARTIN, as next friend C. T. T., a minor; ALICIA DE'SHON WHITE, as next friend T. L. T., a minor; PATRICIA THOMAS, as next friend D. M. G., a minor,

Plaintiffs

- Appellants

v. CITY OF FORT WORTH,

Defendant

- Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas 4:13

- CV

- 198 4:13

- CV

- 234 United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED February 18, 2015 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 14-10759 Document: 00512938956 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/18/2015No. 14

- 10759 Before JOLLY, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges

. PER CURIAM: * City of Fort Worth Police Officer Jon Romer (“Romer”) shot and killed Charal Thomas (“Thomas”) while attempting to arrest him following a traffic stop. Plaintiffs Cordell Davis (“Davis”), a passenger in Thomas’s car, and Thomas’s four children filed lawsuits a gainst Romer and the City of Fort Worth (the “City”) , alleging, among other claims, that Romer violated their Fourth Amendment rights through the use of excessive force, and that the use of such force is a policy or practice of the City’s police department. 1 The district court found that Romer did not violate plai ntiffs’ Fourth Amendment rights and granted summary judgment to Romer on the bas is of qualified immunity. The

court later granted summary judgment to the City. Plaintiffs appealed both judgments

. The judgment in favor of the City is now before us ; the judgment in favor of Romer came before another panel of this court

. “Municipal liability for section 1983 violations results if a deprivation of constitutional rights was inflicted pursuant to official custom or policy.” Piotrowski v. City of Hous. , 237 F.3d 567, 579 (5th Cir. 2001). To prevail on an excessive force clai m under section 1983, a plaintiff must show: “(1) an injury (2) which resulted from the use of force that was clearly excessive to the need and (3) the excessiveness of which was objectively unreasonable.” Rockwell v.
Brown , 664 F.3d 985, 991 (5th Cir. 20 11) (internal quotation marks omitted). “The ultimate determination of Fourth Amendment objective reasonableness

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.

1 Plaintiffs Davis and J.T.T., one of Thomas’s minor children, filed a lawsuit agains t Romer and the City; Thomas’s three other minor children (each acting through a next friend) also filed a lawsuit against Romer and the City. The district court consolidated the two lawsuits. 2 Case: 14-10759 Document: 00512938956 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/18/2015No. 14

- 10759 is a question of law.” Ramirez v. Knoulton , 542 F.3d 124, 128 (5th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted). The panel that considered plaintiffs’ appeal of the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Romer held that “Romer’s use of force was objectively reasonable,” and, accordingly, plaintiffs “have not shown a Fourth Amendment
violation.” Davis v. Romer , No. 13

- 11 242, 2015 WL 409862, at *5 (5th Cir. 2015) (per curiam) (affirming the district court’s judgment that Romer was en titled to qualified immunity). We are bound by the prior panel’s determina tion. See Jacobs v. Nat’l Drug Intelligence Ctr. , 548 F.3d 375, 37 8 (5th Cir. 2008) (“It is
a well

- settled Fifth Circuit rule of orderliness that one panel of our court may not overturn another panel’s decision, absent an intervening change in the law . . . .”). B ecause the prior panel affirmed the district court’s hold ing that Romer’s use of force did not violate the Fourth Amendment , plaintiffs cannot maintain a section 1983 claim against the City alone

. See, e.g. , Bustos v. Martini Club, Inc. , 599 F.3d 458, 46 7 (5th Cir. 2010) (explaining that a municipali ty cannot b e held liable under s ection 1983 if no constitutiona l
violation has been committed by a municipal actor ). The district court’s grant of summary judgment to the City is AFFIRMED.

3 Case: 14-10759 Document: 00512938956 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/18/2015