Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that thi s opinio n should not * be publishe d an d is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 51235 C Y N T H IAG A L VA N , In d iv id u a llya n da s N e x t F r ie n do f S G , a M i n or, P l a i n ti ff-A p p ell a n t , v. C I TYO F S A N A N TO N I O ; O FF I C E R R I C H A R D SM I TH , B adge #0352, I n d iv i d u a l l ya n dI n Hi s Of f i c i a lCa p a c i t y ; OFF I CER RI CHARD G A R C I A , B adge #1428, I ndi vi dual l y and I n H i s O f f i c i al C apac i t y , D efen da n t s- A pp el l ees .

A p p ea lf

rom the U n i ted S tates D i stri ct C ou rt f o rt he W e s t e r n Di s t r i c to f Te xa s , Sa n Ant o ni o D ivi s i o n US DC No . S A- 0 7
- CA

- 0 3 7 1
- OG
B ef ore JO N E S , C h i ef

Ju dg e, SM ITH an d E L R O D , C i rcui tJu dg es . P E R C U R I A M: * T h is ca s e a r is e s fr o m t h e d e a th o f S e r g io G a lv a n , w h o d ie da fte ra s tr u g g le w i t h O f f i cers R i cha rd S m i t h an d R i cha rd G arci a of t h e Sa n A n t on i o P ol i ce D epa rt m en ton M arch 23 , 200 7. T h e i ssue bef ore u s i s w h et h er t h e di st ri ctcourt p r o p e r lygr a n t e ds u m m a r yju d g m e n tt o t h e o f f i c e r s , d i s m i s s in gC y n t h iaG a lv a n ’s (t h e w i dow of

Sergi o G al van ) 42 U . S . C . § 198 3 cl ai m s f or exces sive f

orce u n der United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D June 1, 20 10 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk Case: 08-51235 Document: 00511128017 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/01/2010N o. 08- 51235

At oral argument, Ms. Galvan made clear th at she does not appealthe di smissal of 1 her municipal-li abilitycl aim again st the C ityof SanAntonio and that sheonlyseeks recovery again st Sm it h and Garciaintheir indivi dualcapacities. Furthermore, her brief doe s not address the dismissed unrea sonable -seizure clai m. Therefore, she h as waive d th at clai m on app eal. See United States v. Thib odeaux, 21 1 F .3d 910 , 912(5th Cir. 2 000) (“It h as long be en the ruleinthiscircuitth at anyi ssu esnotb rief edo napp eal arewaived .”). 2 t he Fo ur t h a nd Fo ur t e e nt h Am e n dm e nt s . The di s t r i c tc o ur tf o und t hatt he 1 of f i cers ’condu ctw as obj ect ivel y reasona bl e, an d theref ore, concl u ded t h at t h ere w a s n o co n s tit u tio n a l v io la tio n . In a d d itio n , th e c o u r t h e ldth a t M s . G a lv a n d id notm ee th erbur den of ov er c om i ng t he o f

f i c er s’as se r t i on o f

qual i f i ed i m m uni t y. We A F F I R M. W e rev i ew a d i stri ct cou rt’ s gr a n t of su m m a ryj u d gm en t de no vo a n da p p ly th e s a m e s ta n d a r d s a s th e d is tr ic t c o u r t. S ee Bec k v . Te x . St at e Bd. of D ent al Exam ’ rs , 2 0 4 F .3 d6 2 9 , 6 3 3 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ); see als o F e d . R . C iv . P . 5 6 (c). S u m m ary j u dg m en ti s proper “ i f t h e pl ead i n gs, t h e di scovery and di scl osure m a terial s on f

i l e, a n dan y a ff

i d a vits sh ow tha t t h ere i s n o g en u i n e iss u e as to an y m ater i al fact an d t h at t h e m ovan t i s en t i t l ed t o j u dg m en t as a m att er of l a w. ” Fe d . R. Civ . P. 5 6 (c )( 2 ) . W e v ie w a ll fa c ts a n dd r a w a ll re a s o n a b le in fe r e n c e s in t h e lig h t m o s t fa v o r a b le to th e n o n -m o v a n t. A. M. exr e l . McAl l um v. Cash , 5 8 5 F .3d 2 1 4 , 2 2 1 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 9 ). W h en the m ov i n g p a r tya s s e r ts q u a lifie di m m u n ity on su m m a ryj u d gm en t, t h e bu rden shi f

t s t o t h e non - m ovi n g pa rt y t o show t h at qua l i f i ed i m m u n i t y does n o t a p p ly . Se e Hatha w ayv . Baz any , 5 0 7 F .3d 3 1 2 , 3 1 9 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 7 ). De t e r mi n i n ga d e fe n d a n t ’ s e n t i t l e me n tt o q u a l i f i e d i mm u n i t yc o n s i s t s o f t wo s e pa r a t e i n q u i r i e s : F i r s t , we a s k wh e t h e rt h e fa c t s a l l e g e d , t a k e n i n t h e l i g ht m o s tfa v o r a b le to th e p a r t ya s s e r t in gth e inju r y , s h o w th a tt h e d e fe n d a n t ’s c o n d u c t v io la te da co n s tit u tio n a l rig h t. S a u cie r v . K a tz , 5 3 3 U .S . 1 9 4 , 2 0 1 (20 0 1 ), ov e r r ul e d i n partby Pe ars o n v . Cal laha n , 1 29 S . C t . 8 08, 8 18 (2009). W e t h en ask w h e th e rth e rig h t v io la te dw a s cle a r lye s ta b lis h e da t t h e tim e . Id . A l t h o u g h it Case: 08-51235 Document: 00511128017 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/01/2010N o. 08- 51235

3 i s “ of t en appr opr i at e” t o a nsw ert hes e t w o q ues t i ons s equent i al l y, c our t s m ay d e c id e w h ic h o f th e t w o p r o n g s to a d d r e s s fir s t. Pearson , 129 S. C t . at 818 . M s. G al van ha s not m eth e r b u rd e n of est abli shi n g excessive f orce u n der t h e f

i rst pa rt of t h e t est . H en ce, w e n eed not ad dress w h et h er t h e o ffi ce rs ’condu ct v io la te da cle a r lye s ta b lis h e drig h t. Hat haway , 5 0 7 F .3 da t 3 2 0 . In ord er to esta b lis h a n ex cess ive -f orce viol a ti on u n d er th e F ou rth A m e n d m e n t, M s . G a l v a n m u s t s h o w a n “(1 ) inju r y , (2 ) w h ic h re s u lte dd ir e c tly an d on l y f

rom a u se of

for ce that w as cl earl y excessive, an d ( 3) t h e excess iven ess of w hi c h w as c l ear l y unre as on a b l e.” Tar v e rv . Ci ty of Edna , 410 F. 3d 745, 751 ( 5th C i r. 200 5) . A l l egati on s of ex cess ive f

orce by pol i ce of

f i cers d u ri n g arrestare an al yzed for“ obj ect ive reasona bl en ess, ” vi ew ed f rom t h e on-s cene perspective of a r e as o nab l e o f

f i c e r “ o f t e n f o r c e d t o m ak e s pl i t s e c o nd j udg m e nt s . . . a bo utt he a m o u n t o f fo r c e th a t is n e c e s s a r y in a p a r tic u la rs itu a tio n ” w ith o u t t h e b e n e fit o f h in d s ig h t. G rah am v . Con n or , 490 U . S . 386 , 396
- 97 (1989). T h e obj ect ivereasona bl en ess i n qu i ry i s fac t-in te n siv e , re q u irin gc o n sid erat i on of ci rcum st an ces such as “th e s e v e ri t y of t h e cr i m e at i ssue, w h et h er t h e suspect po s e s a n i m m e di at e t hr e att o t he s af e t y o f t he o f f i c e r s o ro t he r s , a nd whet he rhe i s ac tive l y re sist i n g a rres t or attem p ti n g to ev a d e a rres t byf l i gh t. ” Id . at396. T h e off i cers , w i th ou t con trad i cti on , tes ti fi ed in d ep ositi on s a n daff i d a vits a b o u t t h e fo llo w in ge v e n ts le a d in gu p to M r . G a lv a n ’ s d e a th : A r o u n d3 :0 0 a .m . o n M ar c h 2 3, 2 00 7, t he y r e s po nde d t o a 9 11 c al la bo utshots fi red i n a“ r o ugh ” ne i ghb o r ho o d— t he a r e a w he r e t he G alva ns l ive d. The r e w e r e a l s o 9 11 ha ngu p c a ll s f r o m the G alva ns ’r e s i de nc e . U po n a r r iva l , t he o f f i c e r s he ar d s c r e am i ng and ye l l i ng i n t he di s t anc e . W he n t he o f f i c e r s di s c o ve r e d t hatM r . G alva n was t he source of

t h e sc ream i n g, t h ey i den t i f i ed them selves an d of fered t h ei r ass i st an ce. M r. G al van ran. D u ri n g t h e ensu i n g cha se, M r. G al van threw som et h i n g. W h en t he o f f i c e r s c aug htup, Sm i t h a t t e m pt e d t o c om m uni c at e w i t h M r . G alva n, of feri n g t o h el p. M r. G al van respond ed bychargi n g at Sm i t h . Sm i t h att em pted Case: 08-51235 Document: 00511128017 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/01/2010N o. 08- 51235

4 t o fen d h i m of

f w i t h tw o sh ot s of

p epp er spray , b u tto n o a vail . M r. G al van t h en gr ab be d t he c anni s t e rf r o m Sm i t h, a nd i n t he e ns ui ng s t r ugg l e , b o t h fe l lt o t he groun d. A tt h at poi n t , both of f i cers att em pted vari ou s op en em pty- h an ded t echn i qu es t o subd u e M r. G al van , b u tagain, w i t h ou tsuccess . G arci a then w arn ed M r. G al van t h at he w ou l d u se t h e T aser, w h i ch h e di d becau se M r. G al van conti n u ed to st rugg l e. D espi t e t h e T aser use, M r. G al van conti n u ed s t r ugg l i ng, b ute ve nt ual l y, t he o f f i c e r s w e r e a bl e t o ha ndc uf f hi s ha nds b e hi nd h i s back w h i l e h e h as facedow n . A ccor di n g t o t h e of f i cers , M r. G al van w as very s tr o n g , a n dit is u n d is p u te dth a t h e w a s o n co c a in e a t t h e tim e . I n s um , w he n c o nf

r o nt e d wi t h a r ap i dl y e vo l vi n g, v o l at i l e s i t uat i o n, t he of f i cers react ed w i t h m easu red an d ascen di n g responses— verbal w arn i n gs, p e p p e r s p ra y , h a n d - an da rm -m a n ip u la tion tec h n iq u e s , a n dth e n th e u se of a Tas e r . The y di d no tus e f o r c e unt i lM r . G alva n a t t ac ke d Sm i t h. U nde rs u ch ci rcum st an ces, w e fi n d th a t the for ce used byt h e of f i cers w as reasonab l e. M s. G al van does not c on t en d otherw i se; i n st ead , she di spu t es t h e of f i cers ’ versi on of th e e v e n ts

— n a m e ly , th a t h e rh u s b a n dv io len tly re sist edarre st. H a vin g c a r e fu lly revi ew ed the recor d, w e agree w i th th e d i st ri ctcourtt h at M s. G al van ha s not pro duce d ev i denc e t o c r eat e age nui ne i ss ue o f m at er i alfac ton t hi s m at t er , as i s h er bu rd en . A ccord i n gly, w e ho l d th a t th e of fi cers d i d n ot violate th e F ou rth A m e n d m e n t b yu s in ge x c e s s iv e fo r c e . S ee G rah am v. Con n or , 490 U . S. 386, 396- 9 7 (19 8 9 ). AF F I RMED. Case: 08-51235 Document: 00511128017 Page: 4 Date Filed: 06/01/2010