Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R . 47 .5, the court has determined that this o pinion should not * be publishe d an d is not precede nt except under the limite d circumstances set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. We GRANT the plaintiffs-appell ant s’ unoppo sed motion to substitute parties in this 1 matter pursuant to Federal Ruleof Appellate Procedure 4 3. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 10076

LU Z M RE YE S, I ndivi dua l l y anda s t he Rep r e s e nt at ive o f t he Est at e o f

J O SE P A C H E C O C E B A L L O S , D eceased, an d as the R epresentative of t h e E st ate of C a r m e n C e b a llo s , D e c e a s e d , a n d a s G u a r d ia n o f AR , M in o rC h ild , P l ai n t i f fs - A pp el l an t s v. W ILL IA M B R ID G W A T E R ; JO S E P O R R A S ; W ILL IA M M U L L , C h i ef of P o lic e , 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 ort he N or t her n D i st r i c tof Texas U SD C N o. 5: 08- C V

- 56

B ef ore K IN G , G A R Z A , an d H AY N E S , C i rcui tJu dg es . H AY N E S , C i rcui tJu dg e: * Jo s e Ce b a l l o s , J r . , w as s ho ta nd k i l l e d b y O f f i c e rW i l l i am Br i dg w at e ro f t he C ity o f P la in v ie w ’ s p o lic e d e p a r tm e n t d u r in ga n in c id e n t a t C e b a llo s ’ s h o m e . H is fam i l y (t he “ Ceba l l o s Fam i l y” ) s ue d Br i dg w at e r ; h i s s upe r vi s o r , J o s e Po r r as ; t he 1 United States Court of App eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Janua ry 22, 2010 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk Case: 09-10076 Document: 00511011019 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/22/2010N o. 09- 10076

The appeal involving the dispositionof the case again st C ityof Pl ainview ha s 2 procee ded se paratelyunder Ca se No . 09 -104 12 and is not b eforeu s here.

The Ceb allos F amily dispute s thi s fact , but points to no contrary evidence in the 3 recor d. 2 C h i e f o f P o lic e ; a n d th e C ity o f P la in v ie w u n d e r4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 3 a n d ce r ta in 2
s t at e l aw t he o r i e s . The di st ri ctco ur tg r ant e d s um m ar y j udg m e ntt o t he i n di vi du aldefen da n t s, an d the C eball os F a m il y a pp eal s. For t h e reasons set f or t h b e l o w , w e RE VE RSE t he s um m ar y j udg m e nta s t o Br i dg w at e ro n t he § 1 9 8 3 cl ai m an d R E M A N D t h at port i on an d otherw i se A F F IR M t h e di st ri ct
cou rt’ s j u d gm en t. I. F a cts O n Sep t em ber 11, 200 6, L u z M ari a R eyes tele ph on ed 91 1 an d reported t hathe rb r o t he r s , Andr e s Pac he c o a nd Ce ba l l o s , w e r e f i ght i ng att he a pa r t m e nt in P la in v iew , T e x a s, w h e re th e ir m o th e r, C a rm e n C e b a ll o s (“M rs . C e b a ll o s”), l ived , an d then hu n g u p on the op erat or. R espon di n g t o t h at c al l , B ri dg w ater
ar r ive d a tt he a pa r t m e nta nd f o und Rey e s a nd Pa c he c o o ut s i de t he do o r t o t he ap art m en tan d the door cl osed. R eyes an d P ach eco tol d B ri dg w atertha tt h ere w as not a f

i gh ti n t h e ap art m en t an d t h at C eball os an d t h ei r m ot h er w ere i n si de. B ri dg w atert h en kn ocked on the door, an n ou n ced th e presence of pol i ce, an d ask ed that t h e door be open ed. Th e door rem ai n ed cl osed. B ri dg w atert h en
r e que s t e d t he as s i s t anc e of Por r as . Ceb al l o s l o o ke d t hr o ugh a w i ndo w a dj ac e nt t o t h e d o o r, an d B ri dg w atersi gn al ed f or hi m t o open t h e door. C eball os ret reat ed i n t o t h e apa rt m en ta n d di d n otop en the door. S om eon e sc ream ed f rom i n side th e a p a rtm en t, an d B ri d gw a ter th en in s tr u cted P a ch eco an d R ey es to 3 step ba ck f

ro m t h e d o o r a n d k i ck ed the do or op en . P orra s ar ri ve d m om en ts af t e r w ar d, a nd b o t h o f f i c e r s dr e w t he i rw e ap o ns a s t he y l o o ke d i n t o t he ent r yw ay. Case: 09-10076 Document: 00511011019 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/22/2010N o. 09- 10076

3 Ceba l l o s m o ve d i nt o t he e nt r yway ho l di ng a ki t c he n kni fe i n o ne handa nd
a ci ga rette i n the oth er. M r s . C e b a l l os w a s also insid e th e a p a rtm en t. Bri dg w at e ro r de r e d Ce ba l l o s t o ge tdown andt o putdown t he kni fe i n Engl i s h; Por r as r e pe at e d t he c o m m andi n S pani s h. Bot h o f f i c e r s r e pe at e d t he in s tr u c tio n , in b o th la n g u a g e s , m u ltip le tim e s . C e b a llo s d id n o t c o m p lya n d to ld t h e of f i cers t o l eave. I ti s und i sput ed t hatC ebal l os nextt hre w dow n hi s c i gar et t e, t hat B r i dgw at ert w i c e s ai d, “ D on’ tdo i t , ” and t hatB r i dgw ater fi red one s hotat Ceba l l o s , w hi c h s t r uc k hi m in t he c he s ta nd u l t i m at e l y ki l l e d hi m . As t o t he furth er d eta i l s of t h e ev en t, the testi m on y o f R ey es a n d M rs. C eb a l l os co n fl i cts
w i t h t hatgiven byt he pol i c e of f i c er s. The i m por tof

t hos e c onf

l i c t s i s t he c ent r al is s u e p r e s e n te d b yth is a p p e a l. B r id g w a t e r t e s tifie d th a t, ju s t b e fo r e th e s h o o tin g , C e b a llo s s u d d e n ly ap pea red m ore ag g re ss ive, t h rew hi s c i garett e bu t tat t h e of f i cers , st epp ed f o r w ar d t o w ar d t he o f f i c e r s , a nd r ai s e d t he knife he w as ho l di ng. Rey e s a nd M rs. C eb a l l os, on the oth er han d, testi fi ed tha t C eb a l l os fl i ck ed h i s ci ga rette b u tt nonaggr es sivel y, di d nots t ep f or w ar d t ow ar ds t he of f i c er s (i nst ead, thath e w as s w ay i ng s i de t o si de ) , and di d notra i s e t he kni fe . Br i dg w at e rt e s t i f i e d t hat , b ut f o rCeb al l o s ’ s a c t i o n o f s t e ppi ng f

o r w ar d a nd r ai s i n g t h e kni fe — ac t i o ns C eball os’ s fam i l y m em bers say di d n otoccur— h e w ou l d n otha ve shot C eball os. T h e C eb a l l os F a m i l y su ed f or v i olati on of C eb a l l os’con sti tu ti on a lri gh ts
u n der 4 2 U .S .C

. § 1983 an d assert ed a n u m ber of add i t i on alst ate t ort cl ai m s— gross n egl i gen ce, assault , w ro n gf u ldeath, i n t en t i on ali n f l i ct i on of
e m o t i o naldi s t r e s s , fai l ur e t o a de qua t e l y s upe r vi s e , fai l ur e t o di s c i pl i ne , a nd fa ilu r e to tr a in
. T h e in d iv id u a l d e fe n d a n ts a s s e r te d , a m o n go th e rd e fe n s e s , a defense of

qu al i f i ed i m m u n i t y as to the federalcl ai m s and m oved f or s u m m ary j u dg m en ton that basi s. Th e i n di vi du aldefen da n ts a lso a sser t ed a stat u t ory ba s i s f o rdi s m i s s alf

o rfai l ur e t o s t at e a c l ai m as t o t he s t at e l aw c aus e s o f a c t i o n. Case: 09-10076 Document: 00511011019 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/22/2010N o. 09- 10076

4 T h e di st ri ct c o u rtgran t ed the i n di vi du aldefen da n t s’m ot i on s f or s u m m ary j udg m e n t a nd d i s m i s s ala nd e nt e r e d aRul e 5 4(b) f i nalj udg m e nta s t o t he i ndivi dua lde fe nda nt s o nl y. Thi s a ppe alf o l l o w e d. II
. Stand ard of

R evi ew W e r e v ie w a g r a n t of s u m m a r y ju d g m e n t d e n o v o . N
. A m . S peci alty I

n s. Co. v. R oyal S u rpl u s Lines Ins. Co. , 541 F
. 3d 552 , 555 ( 5th C i r. 200 8)

. Su 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 an d d i scl osure m ater i al s on f i l e , a nda nya f

f i d a v i t s s ho w t ha tt he r e i s n o g e nu i ne i s s ue a s t o a nym a t e r i al fac t and t hat t he m ovant i s ent i t l ed t o j udgm ent as a m at t er of l aw . ” F ED . R. C IV . P
. 56(c )

. Agen u i n e i ssue of m ater i alfact exi st s w h en t h e evi den ce i s s u ch th a t a re a s o n a b le ju r yco u ld re t u r n a v e r d ic t fo rth e n o n -m o v a n t, A nder s on v. L i berty L obby, I

n c. , 47 7 U
. S

. 24 2 , 24 8 ( 1 9 8 6 ); tha t i s, “[ a ]n i ssu e i s m a teriali f i ts
reso l u ti on cou l d a ff

ect th e ou tcom e of the action
. ” W yattv. H u n tP l

yw oodCo. , 297 F
. 3d 405 , 409 ( 5th C i r. 200 2)

. W h en revi ew i n g a g ra n t of s u m m ary j udg m e nt , w e v i e w a l lfac t s a nd e vi de nc e i n t he l i ght m o s t fav o r ab l e t o t he no nm o v in gp a r ty
. Un i t ed Fi re & Cas. Co. v. Hixson B ros. , 45 3 F
. 3 d 28 3 , 28 5 ( 5 th C i r. 20 0 6 ). I n doi n g so, w e “ ref rai n f rom m ak i n g credibi l i t y determ i n ati on s or w eigh in g th e ev i d en ce.” Nati on w i d e Mu t
. I n s. Co. v. L ak e Carol i n e, I n c. , 515 F .3 d 4 1 4 , 4 1 8 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ). T h e doct ri n e of

qu al i f i ed i m m u n i t y provi des i m m u n i t y f rom sui tun der § 1 9 8 3 to gov ern m en t of fi ci a l s p rov i d e d t h a t “t h eir con d u ct do es n ot viol a te cl earl y est abli shed st atutor y or c on st i t u t i on all aw of w h i ch a reasona bl e person w ou l d h a ve k n ow n . ” G o o d m a n v. Ha rr is Co u n ty , 5 71 F
. 3d 388 , 395 ( 5th C i r. 2009) ( quot i ng W

al lac e v . County of

Com al , 4 0 0 F .3d 2 8 4 , 2 8 9 (5 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ));
se e a lso Mitch ell v. F o rsy th , 47 2 U
. S

. 51 1 , 52 6 ( 1 9 8 5 ) (“T h e en ti tl em en t [to qua l i f i e d i m m uni t y] i s a n i m m u n i ty f ro m su it ra th er th a n a m ere de fen se to l i ab i l i t y . . . . ” )

. Att he s um m ar y j udg m e nts t ag e , t he r e f o r e , “ [ w ] he n a de fe nda nt pl eads qual i f

i ed i m m uni t y as an af f i r m at ive def

ens e . . . , a co urtm ustdec i de ( 1) Case: 09-10076 Document: 00511011019 Page: 4 Date Filed: 01/22/2010N o. 09- 10076

After th e di strict court’s decision , th e Supreme Court reconsidered and made non 4 mandatoryit s previous requirementth at courts always evalu ate wheth er the conduct a s shown at summaryj udgment in fact violated aconstitution al right before evaluating whether th e ri ght at i ssu e wa s cle arlye st ab li sh ed
. See Pearson v. C allahan , 12 9 S . C t. 8 08, 818(20 09) (li miting Sauc ie r v. Katz , 5 3 3U.S

. 1 9 4(2 0 0 1 ))

. As Ontive rosnot es , how ever , Pearsonregarded the Sau ciermethodology as “often benefici al,” and there is no errorinth e di strict court’s pre

Pearsonapp ro ach
. See5 6 4F .3 d at 3 8 2 ; see a lso P earson , 12 9 S . C t. at 8 18. 5 w h e th e r th e fac ts a ll e g e d or sh o w n b yth e p la in tiff m a [k ]e o u t a v io la t ion of a
c o ns t i t ut i o nalri ght , and ( 2) w he t he rt hatr i ghtw as ‘ c l e ar l y e s t ab l i s he d’a tt he ti m e of the de fen d a n t’ s all eg ed m i scon d u ct. ” O n t i veros v. C i ty of R osenberg , 564 F
. 3d 379 , 382 ( 5th C i r. 200 9)

. T h e absen ce of a gen u i n e i ssue of m ater i alfacton ei t h er e l e m e ntm e a ns t ha tt he d e fe nd a nti s e nt i t l e d t o s um m a r yj ud g m e nt
. “ To 4
ne ga t e a de fe ns e o f q ual i f i e d i m m uni t y anda vo i d s um m ar y j udg m e nt , t he pl ai n t i f f need n o tpresent ‘ absol u t e proof, ’bu tm u stof fer m ore t h an ‘ m ere a l l eg a ti on s. ’” I

d. ( quot i ng R ees e v. A n d ers on , 9 2 6 F .2d 4 9 4 , 4 9 9 (5t h C ir. 1 9 9 1 )). A s noted above, severalfact s are di spu t ed. T h e f i rstqu est i on , t h eref

ore, i s w he t he ra ny o f

t ho s e fac t s a re m at e r i al , t hati s , w he t he rt he y c hang e t he
o ut c o m e o f

t he q ual i f

i e d i m m uni t y ana l ys i s . As t hi s c o ur ti n G ood son v. C i ty of Co rp u s C h ris ti f

ram ed the i n qu i ry, “ sum m ary j u dg m en ti s i n ap propri ate un l ess p la in tiff

’ s v e r s io n o f th e v io la tio n s d o e s n o t i m p lic a te cle a r lye s ta b lis h e d la w .” 2 0 2 F .3d 7 3 0 , 7 3 9 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 0 ). II I. D i scussi on A
. B ri dgw ate r If B ri dg w ater i s en t i t l ed t o qu al i f i ed i m m u n i t y even un der R eyes’ s vers i on of eve n ts, the n su m m a ry j u d gm en t w a s a p p rop ri a te b eca u se t h e d i sp u te of fa cts
w o ul d b e i m m at e r i al ; o t he r w i s e , s um m ar y j udg m e ntw as i m pr o pe r l y gr an t e d. See , e . g. , G ood son , 2 0 2 F .3 d a t 7 3 9
. T h u s , th is is s u e tu r n s o n w h e th e rth e r e is
a m at e r i ali ssu e of fa ct. B rid g w a t er i s enti t l ed to qu al i f i ed i m m u n i t y at t h i s procedural st age i f, und erR eye s’ s ver si on o f ev ent s, hi s use of deadl y f or c e w as not“ c l ear l y e xc es sive Case: 09-10076 Document: 00511011019 Page: 5 Date Filed: 01/22/2010N o. 09- 10076

6 or clear l y u n rea son a b l e.” S ee R am i rezv. Kn ou l t on , 542 F
. 3d 124 , 128 ( 5th C i r. 2 0 0 8 ) (i n t e r n a l p u n c t u a t i o n o mi t t e d )

. Un l i k e s o me a r e a s o f c o n s t i t u t i o n a ll a w, t he q ue s t i o n o f

w he n de ad l y f

o r c e is a pp ropr i at e –a nd t he c o nc o m i t ant
c o nc l us i o n t hatde ad l y f o r c e i s o ri s no te xc e s s ive –i s w e l l

- e s t ab l i s he d. T enn ess ee v. G arn er , 4 7 1 U .S . 1 , 1 1

– 1 2 , 2 1 (1 9 8 5 ) ( h o l d i n gth a t d e a d lyfo r c e is
n o t ju stified u n les s a s u sp e ct p o se s a risk of se rio u s h a rm a t th a t p o in t in tim e ). W e r e c e nt l y e xp l ai ne d t hatthe focus o f t he i nqui r y i s “ t he a c tt hatl e d [t he off i cer] to d i sch a rg e h i s w ea p on . ” Man i s v. L aw son , 5 85 F
. 3d 839 , 845 ( 5th C i r. 20 09 )

. H e r e , t he sum m ar y j udg m e ntst and ar d r e qui r e s t hatt he c o ur tc o nc l ude t hatt he r e w as , i n e s s e nc e , no s uc h ac t , i
. e . , t hatt he r ai s e d k ni fe a nd t hr e at e ni ng st ep f orw ard d i d n otocc u r. B ri d gw a ter ar gu es th a t R am i rezsup ports hi s defen se of qu al i f i ed im m u n ity
. R am i rez , ho w e ve r , i s di s t i ngu i s hab l e i n c r i t i c a lr e s p e c t s . I n R am i rez , po l i c e s t o ppe d ac ardr ive n b y a s us pe c tw ho m t he y kne w t o b e a r m e d. The
s us pe c tr e f

us e d t o c o m pl y w i t h t he o f f i c e r s ’i ns t r uc t i o ns a nd d i s pl ay e d ag un, b ut
n ever rai sed i tor ai m ed i t at t h e of f i cers . T en seconds aft er t h e suspect exi t ed t he c ar , o ne o f

f i c e rf i r e d atand s e r i o us l y i nj ur e d t he m an. 5 42 F. 3da t1 27
. The F i f t h C i rcui trevers ed a m agis t rat e j u dg e’ s concl u si on t h at t h e of f i cers w ere not
en t i t l ed to qu al i f

i ed i m m u n i t y, p oi n t i n g ou tt h at t h e suspect “ repeatedl y ref u sed t he o f f i c e r s ’c o m m and s a nd u l t i m at e l y s t o o d, a r m e d, sev e r aly ar ds f r o m t he
o ffic e r s . [H e ] b r o u g h t h is h a n d s to g e th e rin w h a t w e b e l i e v e c o u ld re a s o n a b ly b e interp reted as a thre a ten i n g g estu re.” I d. a t 1 3 1
. Ther e a r e t w o m aj o rdi s t i nc t i o ns b e t w e e n R am i rez an d the present case. Fi r s t , und e rt he fac t s pr e s e nt e d by t he Ceb al l o s Fam i l y, Ceb al l o s di d no tm ak e

“ a t hr e at e ni ng ge s t ur e ” ( o rm o t i o n) a s di d t he s us pe c ti n R am i rez . Se c o nd, Ceba l l o s w as a rm e d wi t h a kni fe , no ta g un. The l at t e rdi s t i nc t i o n l i m i t s t he
u se fu ln e ss of R am i rez’ s exhortat i on t h at t h e courtexam in e th e si t u ati on f rom t h e per sp ect ive of

“ t h e reasonab l e bel i efs of of f i cers st an di n g yard s aw ay f rom Case: 09-10076 Document: 00511011019 Page: 6 Date Filed: 01/22/2010N o. 09- 10076

7 a de fi a n t, distu rb ed , an d arm ed m a n . ” Se ei d. at 130
. Th e i m m edi acy of t h e ri sk pre se nt ed by a m an ar m ed w i t h a ki t c hen kni fe a thi s si de i s farl es s t han t hat of a m an ar m ed w i t h a gun: a g un can ki l li nst ant aneous l y att he di st ance t hat t he m an s ho tb y t he o f f i c e ri n R am i rezs t oo d, w her eas C ebal l os w oul d have had t o f i r s te i t he ra dv anc e t o w ar d Br i dg w at e ro ra tl east rai s e t he kni fe b e f o r e he
c o u ld in flic t a n yh a r m . Se eMac ev. C i ty of Pale s t i ne , 333 F
. 3d 621 , 625 ( 5th C i r. 20 03 ) (f i ndi ng no c o ns t i t ut i o nalv i o l at i o n i n t he s i t uat i o n o f “ an i nt o xi c at e d, violen t a n d u n coo p era tive i n d ivid u a l w h o w a s w i eldin g a sw ord w i th i n eigh t t o t e n f e e to f s e ve r alo f

f i c e r s i n a r e l at ive l y c o nf i ne d s pa c e ” ; i n t hats i t uat i o n, t he d e c e d e n t ra is e d th e s w o r d a n d th e n w a s s h o t); seealso Ch appel lv. C i ty of Cl e v e land , 585 F
. 3d 901 , 910 ( 6th C i r. 200 9) ( qu al i f i ed i m m u n i t y gran t ed w h ere t e e nag e rr e f

us e d t o dr o p k ni fe a nd i ns t e ada dv anc e d o n t he o f f i c e r s , w ho w ere in clo s e p r o x im ity , w ith th e k n ife ra is e d ). R am i rez does n otcontr olt h i s c ase. T h e Su prem e C ou rtha s r equ i red court s t o be deferenti alt o t h e choi ces
m a d e b yp o lic e o ffic e r s in h ig h -r is k s itu a tio n s . S ee G rah am v. Con n or , 4 90 U
. S. 386, 397 ( 1989)

. Thatdef er enc e, how eve r , c annotex t end so faras t o i gnor e a n of f i cer’ s vi ol ati on of

t h e cor e, est abli shed rul e t h at deadly f orce m ay n otbe used “[ w ]he re th e su sp ect p os e s n o im m e d i a te thr ea t t o th e off i cer a n d n o th rea t t o oth ers.” G arn er , 471 U
. S

. at 11. I tvi ol ates t h e F ou rt h A m en dm en tt o use d ea d l y force ab sen t su ch a th rea t. H ere, t h ere w as n o “i m m edi ate threat” as G arn er requ i res. Th e evi den ce, vi ew ed as req u ired i n t h i s procedural posture, does not sup port t h e di st ri ct court’ s c on cl u si on t h at t h ere w as no con st i t u t i on alvi ol atio n . A tt h e sum m ary j udg m e nts t ag e , w he r e t he c o ur tm us tr e s o l ve c o nf l i c t i ng e vi de nc e i n fav o ro f t he pl ai nt i f f, t he c o ur tm us ta s s um e t hatCeb al l o s s t o o d, in h i s own ho m e , w i t h a ki t c hen kni fe a t t hi s si de, sw ayi ng sl i ght l y si de t o si de, at a sa fe di st ance aw ay f r o m t he o f

f i c e r s w he n B r i dg w at e rope ne d f i r e . W he n B r i dg w at e ra r r ive d o n t he
s cen e, furth erm ore , h e w a s resp on d i n g to a 91 1 callrep ortinga “d o m e s tic Case: 09-10076 Document: 00511011019 Page: 7 Date Filed: 01/22/2010N o. 09- 10076

Whilewe h ave of cour se foun d the use of deadly force constitutional in circu mstance s 5 th at donotinvolve felo nyarres ts , see, e. g. , Ma n is , 5 8 5F .3 d at 8 4 2 , th e “s everityof th e crim e at issue” is a mongth e factors thatcomprise the totality of the circumstances under Graham

. 4 9 0U .S

. at 3 9 6 ; cf. Tarver v. Cit y of Edna , 410 F.3d 74 5, 7 53 (5thC ir. 2 005) (noting th at the “s everity of th e crim e at is su e wa s minim al”inanarres t overacu stodydis pute), F ogar t y v. Gallegos , 52 3 F .3d 1 147 , 11 60 (10thC ir. 2 008) (holdin g that “the amount of force should [b e] reduc ed accordingly” in proportionto the severity of the crime). The s ev er it y of the “crime” herewas likely at most a misdemeanor, and it is not eve n clear th at Ceb allos was the suspect.

Althou ghunpubli shed op in ions arenot precede nt, we cit e this de cisio n for its 6 pers u a sive valu e u n der si milar fact s. 8 di st urbanc e w i t h pos sibl e vi ol enc e” ; he w as not , t hati s, ant i c i pat i ng m aki ng a fe lo n ya r r e s t, o re v e n n e c e s s a r ilya n ya r r e s t a t a ll. 5 T h e fa c t s t h a td i s t i n g u i s h t h e p r e s e n tc a s e f r o m Mace and R am i rez di r ec t l y a d dre ss t he c or e i ss ue: w het hert he o f f i c err eas onabl y pe r c eived an im m e d ia te th re a t. In th e lan g u a g e of Ma n is , th e re w a s n o “a ct” to j u stify
s ho o t i ng. I f

Br i dg w at e r ’ s c o nduc tw as c o ns t i t ut i o nal l y pe r m i s si bl e, t he n t he F ou rt h A m en dm en t a l l ow s an of f i cer t o use dea dl y f

orce aga i n sta person n ot
sus pec t ed o f

any s er i ou s crim e w ho i s i n hi s ow n hom e— t hatt he o f f i c er s have ent er ed bybr eaki ng dow n t he doo r— st a n d i ng ata s afe di st ance hol di ng a k i t c hen kni fe m er el y becau se h e i s h o l d i n g t h e k n i fe a n d d o e s n o t p u t i t d o wn d e s p ite p o lic e in s tr u c tio n to d o s o . Cf

. B acqu e v. L eger , 207 F. A pp’ x 374, 376 ( 5t h Ci r . 2 00 6) (unpub l i s he d) (f i ndi ng e vi de nc e o f

f i c e r s s ho ta s us pe c t“ w hi l e he 6 st oo d m ot i onl es s w i t h hi s kni fe a thi s si de .
. . a t le as tt en t o f or t y f ee taw ay”
s u f f i c i e n t l y m a t e r i a l t o p r e c l u d e a n y r e s o l u t i o n a s a m a t t e r o f l a w)

. S u c h a th r e a t is b yd e f

i n i t i o n n o t “ im m e d ia te ” b e c a u s e th e in d iv id u a l m u s t s till do
som et h i n g— t h e Man i s “ act”

— bef ore t h e l atent threat m ater i al i zes i n t o an y ri sk
o f ha r m . I n t hati nt e r va l , t he r e w o ul d hav e be e n t i m e f o r Bri dg w at e rt o r e s po nd. U nde rt he s e fac t s a nd i n t hi s s i t uat i o n, Bri dg w at e r ’ s us e o f de ad l y f

o r c e a bs e nt
an i m m ediat e t hr e atf r o m Ceb al l o s w as a c o ns t i t ut i o nalv i o l at i o n. Case: 09-10076 Document: 00511011019 Page: 8 Date Filed: 01/22/2010N o. 09- 10076

While the officer’s subjective mindset is not the que stion , it is noteworthy that even 7 Bri dgwater i s not conten ding he could simplykill C eballo s for hol ding a knife at his side and notp uttin git down . In st ea d, heconte n dsth at C eb allosst ep pe d forwardan d rais edth e knif e and that thes e acti onsjustif iedthe sho oti ng. 9 Asu m m ar y j udgm entbas ed upon qual i f i ed i m m uni t y w oul d s t i l lbe
a p p rop ri a te i f th e con sti tu ti on a lviol a ti on w e h a ve f ou n d w a s n ot con trary to cl earl y est abli shed l aw . A s O n t i veros e xp l ai ns , i n e val u ati ng t hi s pr o ng, “ t he court m u stask w h et h er, at t h e t i m e of t h e i n ci den t , t h e l aw cl earl y est abli shed t h at s u ch cond u ctw ou l d vi ol ate t h e [ consti t u t i on ]
. Th i s i n qu i ry f ocuses . . . on th e s p e c ific cir c u m s ta n c e s o f th e in c id e n t— c o u ld a n o ffic e rh a v e re a s o n a b ly i n t erpret ed t h e l aw t o concl u de t h at t h e perceived t h reat posed by t h e suspect
w as s uf f i ci en t t o j ust i f

y de adl y f

or c e? ” 564 F. 3d at383 n. 1 (c i t i ng B r os s e au v. Haugen , 54 3 U .S . 1 9 4 , 1 9 9

– 2 0 0 (2 0 0 4 )). In d e e d , u n le s s th e v io la tio n is “o b v io u s ,” t h ere m u stbe rel evan tcase l aw t h at “ squ arel y govern s” t h e si t u ati on w i t h w h i ch th e o ffic e r s w e r e p r e s e n te d a n d g iv e s “fa irn o tic e ” t h a t s u c h co n d u c t w o u ld
v io la te th e la w . Bro s s e au , 5 4 3 U .S . a t 2 0 0 n .4 , 2 0 1 ; seealso O n t i veros , 564 F. 3d at 383 n . 1 ( “ E xcessive f orce i n ci den t s are h i gh l y fact
- speci f i c an d w i t h ou tcases squ arel y on poi n t , of

f i cers rec eive t h e prot ect i on of qu al i f i ed i m m u n i t y. ” )

. Th ese c a s e s d o n o t, h o w e v e r , r e q u ir e w h a t B r id g w a te rc o n te n d s –a ca s e w ith e x a c tly t he s am e fac t s f

i ndi ng a c o ns t i t ut i o nalvi o l at i o n. I ns t e ad , t he y r e qui r e t hatt he la w cle a r lys e t p a r a m e te r s u n d e rw h ic h a n o b je c tiv e ly r e a s o n a b le o ffic e rw o u ld kn ow w h at i s perm i ssibl e an d w h at i s exces sive. S ee Ki n n ey v. W eaver , 367 F. 3d 7 3 3 7 , 3 5 0 (5 t h C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) ( e n b a n c ) ( “ T h e c e n t r a l c o n c e p tis th a to f ‘fa irw a r n in g ’: T h e l aw can b e cl earl y est abli shed ‘ desp i t e n ot able fact u ald i st i n ct i on s bet w een t h e preceden t s r el i ed on an d the cases t h en bef ore t h e C ou rt , so l on g as t h e pri or deci si on s gave reasona bl e w arn i n g t h at t h e condu ctt h en at i ssue vi o lat ed
c on sti tu ti on alr i ght s. ’” ( quot i ng Hope v. Pelzer , 5 3 6 U .S

. 7 3 0 , 7 4 0 (20 0 4 ))) ; se e als o, e . g. , C raigh eadv. L ee , 399 F
. 3d 954 , 962 ( 8th C i r. 200 5) ( “ [ T ] h e i ssue i s not Case: 09-10076 Document: 00511011019 Page: 9 Date Filed: 01/22/2010N o. 09- 10076

10 w he t he rpr i o rc as e s pr e s e ntfac t s s ubs t ant i al l y s i m i l art o t he pr e s e ntc as e b ut
w h et h er pri or c ases w ou l d h ave p u ta reasonab l e of f i cer on n ot i ce t h at t h e use o f d e a d ly fo rc e in th e se circ u m sta n ce s w o u ldv iola te [th e C o n stitu tion ]. ”) T h e cases on d ead l y f orce are cl ear: an of f i cer can n otuse d e a d l y f orce w i t ho ut an i m m e di at e s e r i o us t hr e at t o hi m s e l f o r o t he r s . H e r e , t he fac t s are u n cl ea r; w a s th ere su ch a n i m m ed i a te thr ea t? B ri d gw a ter’ s ve rsion of th e facts
w ou l d say “yes, ” w h i l e t h e ot h er w i t n esses ’versi on s w ou l d say “no. ” T h e case pr e s e nt e d he r e i s notone w he r e t he l aw i s no tc l e ar l y e s t ab l i s he d b utr at he ro ne w her e t he fac t s ar e no tc l ear l y e st abl i she d. As s uch, s um m ar y j udgm entw as i m proper. A ccor di n gl y, w e revers e t h e sum m ary j u dg m e n ti n favor of Bri dg w at e r o n qua l i f i e d i m m uni t y gr o unds as t o t he § 19 83 c l ai m s of t he C ebal l os Fam i l y. B
. Po rr a s a n dMu ll I ti s und i s put e d t hatBr i dg w at e r ’ s s upe r vi s o r , Po r r as , a r r ive d a tt he s c e ne ver y s hor t l y be f

or e t he sho ot i ng. Th e Cebal l os Fam i l y c ont ends t hatPor r as ( 1)
w a s d i rectly i n vo l ve d in B ri d gw a ter’ s violati on o f C eb a l l os’co n sti tu ti on a lri gh ts becau se he fai l ed to i n t ervene, a n d (2 ) w as, as B ri dg w ater ’ s s u pervi sor, del iberatel y i n di f

ferent t o C eball o s’ s r i gh t s. M u l l ’ s i n vol vem en ti s even m ore rem ote— h e w a s n ot the re, a n d h e is a ccu sed si m p l y o f n ot d o i n g e n ou gh to pr e ve ntt he s i t uat i o n b y w ayo f t r ai ni ng andg e ne r als upe r vi s i o n. A s to th e fa ilu r e t o i n te r v e n e cla im , w e h a v e h e ld th a t “ a n o ffic e rw h o is present att h e sc en e an d d oes n ottak e reason able m easu res t o prot ecta suspect from an oth er offi cer’ s u se of e xc ess ive force m a y b e l i a b l e u n d er [§] 1 9 8 3
. ” Ha le
v. T ow n ley , 4 5 F .3d 9 1 4 , 9 1 9 (5t h C ir. 1 9 9 5 ). A s t o t h e fai l u re t o sup ervi se and t rai n cl ai m , w e note t h at § 198 3 does n ot p r o v id e fo ra n yfo r m o f v ic a r io u s o rre s p o n d e a t s u p e r io rlia b ility
. S ee Est ateof D a v is v
. C ity of N

. R ich la n dHills , 4 06 F. 3d 3 75, 3 81 ( 5t h Ci r . 2 00 5)

. I ns t e ad , l i ab i l i t y i s pr o pe rw he n “ ( 1) t he s upe r vi s o re i t he rfai l e d t o s upe r vi s e o rt r ai n t he Case: 09-10076 Document: 00511011019 Page: 10 Date Filed: 01/22/2010N o. 09- 10076

11 su b o rd in a t e of

f i ci al ; ( 2) a causal l i n k exis t s bet w een t h e fai l u re t o t rai n or sup ervi se and t h e vi ol ati on of t h e pl ai n t i f

f ’ s ri gh t s; an d ( 3) t h e fai l u re t o t rai n or su p erv i se a m ou n ts to d elib era te i n d i ff ere n ce.” I

d. ( quot i ng S m i t h v. B renoet t sy , 1 5 8 F .3 d 9 0 8 , 9 1 1

– 1 2 (5 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 )). E ven vi ew i n g t h e evi den ce i n t h e lig h tm ostfavorab l e t o t h e C eball os Fam i l y, i tdo e s no ta ppe art hatP o r r as “ fai l e d t o s upe r vi s e ” Br i dg w at e r , o r , i f he d id , th a t a n yco n s tit u tio n a l v io la tio n fo l l o w e d f r o m th a t fa ilu r e . N e ith e rd id Por r as fai lt o i nt e r ve ne : t he e vi de nc e , vi e w e d i n t he l i ghtm o s tfav o r ab l e t o t he C eball os F am i l y, does not s h ow a course of act i on t h at Porras c ou l d h ave taken t o s t o p Br i dg w at e rf r o m f i r i n g. The s i t uat i o n was t e ns e a nd d e ve l o pi ng, a nd B r id g w a te rfir e d w ith o u t w a r n in g . E v e n in R e y e s ’v e r s io n o f e v e n ts , it w o u ld h a v e b e e n pa t e n t l ya b s u r d f o rP o r r a s t o h a v e o r d e r e d B r i d g wa t e rt o p u td o wn hi s g un. Le s s t han t w o m i nut e s t r ans pi r e d b e t w e en Po r r as ’ s a r r iva la nd t he shooti n g. Th e C eball os Fa m i l y h as n otcreated a gen u i n e i ssue of m ater i alfact
as t o w he t he rPo r r as ha d a ny o ppo r t uni t y t o i nt e r ve ne i n t he s i t uat i o n a nd preven tB ri dg w aterf rom f i ri n g, letal on e t h at he acqu i esced i n t h e use of f orce. F u rt h er, the st an da rd of “del iberate i n di f

ference” requir ed f

or s u pervi sor lia b ility to a tt a c h is a “s tr in g e n t” o n e th a t is n o t m e t h e r e . S ee D a v is , 406 F. 3d at3 81
. As w e e xp l ai ne d i n D a v is , del iberate i n di f ference requ i r[ es] proof

t h at a m u n i ci pa lact or di sregarded a kn ow n or ob viou s con seq u en c e o f h i s ac ti on . F or a n off i ci a lto act w i th del iberate i n di f

ference, t h e off

i ci alm u stboth be aw are of fact s f rom w hi c h t he i nfe r e nc e c o ul d b e dr awn t hat a s ubs t ant i al r i s k o f s e r i o us h a rm ex i sts, an d h e m u st also dr a w the i n feren ce. D elib era te i n di f ference requir es a show i n g o f m o re t h an neg l i gen ce oreven g r o s s n e g lig e n c e . A c tio n s a n d d e c is io n s b y o ffic ia ls th a t a r e m e r e ly i n ep t, erro n eo u s, i n effective, or n eg l i ge n t do n ot am ou n t t o delib e rat e i n di f

ference an d d o not divestof f i ci al s of

qu al i f i ed i m m uni t y. I d. ( quot at i ons , f

oo t not es , and c i t at i ons om i tted)

. There i s no e vi denc e t hat
w ou l d su pp orta f

i n di n g t h at Porras w as act u ally a w a re that B ri dg w ater Case: 09-10076 Document: 00511011019 Page: 11 Date Filed: 01/22/2010N o. 09- 10076

12 pr e s e nt e d ar i s k t hatPo r r as c ho s e t o di s r e ga r d. I nde e d, t he re i s vi r t ual l y no e v id e n ce th a t P o rr a s k n e w of any a d v e r s e in fo r m a tio n re g a r d in gB r id g w a te r . W e hav e pr e vi o us l y r ej e ct ed cl ai m s of del i berate i n di fference for s u p e r v is o r s w h e r e o t h e ro ff ic e r s a c t u a ll yk n e w o f t h e s h o o t in go ff ic e r ’s propen si t y f

or vi ol en ce and ha d received ci t i zen co m pl ai n t s r egard i n g t h e of f i cer. Se ei d. at 382
. In deed , t h e reason t h at t h e courtprevi ou sl y rej ect ed these pu rport ed grou n d s for l i abil i t y i s t h at f ai l u re t o sup ervi se c l ai m s r equ i re

“ dem ons t r at [ i on] [ of

] a pat t e r n of

v i o lat i o ns ” tha tcan n otn orm al l y be proven on th e ba sis of a sing l e prior i n c id e n t. S ee i d. a t3 82 –3 3 & n. 34
. The r e i s no s ugg e s t i o n o f a pa t t e r n o f vi o l at i o ns he r e ; t he Ceba l l o s Fam i l y po i nt s t o one di s s i m i l arv i o l e nti nc i de nti n Bri dgw at e r ’ s pr e vi o us e m pl o ym e nt( o f w hi c h t he Ceba l l o s Fam i l y ac kno w l e dg e s P o r r as w as unaw ar e ) as w e l las t r af f i c v i o l at i o ns by Bri d gw a te r . Even draw i ng al li nfer enc es i n favorof t he C ebal l os Fam i l y, th ese cl a i m s ag a i n st P orra s fa i l
. T h e dist ri ct cou rt’ s gra n t of qu a l i fi ed i m m u n i ty t o P orras w as not er ror. Si m i l ar l y, M ul l ’ s a c t i o ns do notri s e t o t he l e ve lre qui r e d b y t he de m and i ng s t and ar d o f

del ibe r at e i ndi f

fe r e nc e . The Ceba l l o s Fam i l y po i nt s t o t he f o l l o w i ng e v id e n c e in o p p o s itio n to s u m m a r yju d g m e n t a s to M u ll: (1 ) B r id g w a te r ’ s tr a ffic
v io la tio n s , o f w h ic h M u ll k n e w ; (2 ) B r id g w a te r ’ s a lle g e d la c k o f tr a in in gin h a n d l i n gd o m e s tic d is p u te s ; a n d (3 ) B r id g w a te r ’ s p r io rv io le n t in c id e n t w h ile
e m pl o ye d a s a c o r r e c t i o ns o f f i c e r , w hi c h was no tade qua t e l y e xp l o r e d d ur i ng t he h i ri n g process. Th i s previ ou s i n ci den tdi d n oti n vol ve u se of dead l y f

orce. E ven t ak en t ogether, t h i s evi den ce does n ot sup port a cl ai m of del iberate i n di f ference.

“ T o sat i sf

y t h e del iberate i n differen ce prong, a pl ai n t i f f usu al l y m u st d e m o n s tr a te a p a tt e r n o f v io la tio n s a n d th a t t h e i n a d e q u a c yo f th e tr a in in gis

‘ ob viou s an d o b viou sly li k ely to resu l t i n a co n sti tu ti on a lviol a ti on . ’” Cous i n v. S m a ll , 325 F. 3d 627, 637 ( 5t h C i r . 2003) ( quot i ng T h o mp so n v . U

p sh u r Co u n ty , 2 4 5 F .3 d 4 4 7 , 4 5 9 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 )). T h e in fo r m a tio n k n o w n to M u ll— p r in c ip a lly Case: 09-10076 Document: 00511011019 Page: 12 Date Filed: 01/22/2010N o. 09- 10076

Many of the C eballo s Fa mily’s cl aims all ege inte ntio nal torts. Th e limitedwaiver of 8 sovereign immunity provided byth e Tex as Tort Cl aims Act does not ext en dt o intention al tort s. T EX . C IV . PRAC . & R EM . C O D E § 1 0 1 .0 5 7 (2). 13 B r i dgw at er ’ s t r af

f i c vi ol at i ons — c oul d nothave sugge st ed t hata co nst i t ut i onal
v io la ti on w a s l i k ely to resu l t. T h e d i stri ct cou rt did n ot err in g ra n ti n g M u ll
s u m m a r yju d g m e n t o n q u a lifie d im m u n ity
. C

. S ta te C la im s Ag a in st B ridg w a ter, Po rr a s, a n dMu ll Th e di st r i c tco u rt a l so di sm i ss ed al lof t he C ebal l os Fam i l y’ s st at e- l aw c a u s e s o f

a c tio n a g a in s t t h e in d iv id u a l d e fe n d a n ts fo rfa ilu r e to s ta te a cla im purs uant t o t he Texas Tor tC l ai m s A c t
. U nders ec t i on 101. 1 0 6 (e) o f t he Texas C ivi lP ract i ce and R em edi es C ode, “[ i] f a su i tis f

i l ed u n der t h i s c h ap t er [ vi z. , t he T ex a s T ort C l a i m s A ct] ag a i n st bo th a g ov ern m en tal un i t an d an y o f i ts
e m p loy e e s, th e em p loy e e s s h a llim m e d ia te ly b e d ism iss e d on th e fi li n gof a
m ot i on b y th e governm en t alun i t
. ” C i t i n g t h i s s ect i on , t h e di st ri ctcourt d i sm i sse d the state-l a w cl a i m s f i l ed a g a in st t h e ind ivid u a lde fen d a n ts. “W e revi ew a [ F ederal ] R u l e [of C ivi lP rocedure] 1 2(b) ( 6) d i sm i ssald e n ovo. W e m u st accept al lw el l

- pl e a d ed fact s as t rue, an d w e revi ew t h em i n t h e l i gh tm ost fav ora b l e to th e p l a i n ti ff

. ” P i ot row skiv. C i ty of Hou st on , 51 F
. 3 d 51 2 , 51 4 ( 5 th C ir. 1 9 9 5 ) ( q u o ta tion om itted ). U n der sect i on 101
. 106 ( e) , a pl ai n t i f f m u st m ak e an “ i rrevoc able” el ect i on to s u e e ith e rth e g o v e r n m e n ta l u n it or its e m p lo y e e s , b u t n o t b o th , w h e n e v e rs u it is b r o u g h t a g a in s t s u c h e n tit ie s . S ee Miss ion Co n so l. In d ep . S ch

. D ist. v . G a rc ia , 2 5 3 S .W .3 d 6 5 3 , 6 5 7 (T e x . 2 0 0 8 ). It is irr e le v a n t w h e th e r th e c la im is a c tu a lly
a l l ow ed by the T ex a s T ort C l a i m s A c t o r n ot. G a rc ia , 253 S. W
. 3d at658–59
. 8 T h e C eball os Fa m i l y argu es t h at i t s cl ai m s agai n stt h e vari ou s defen da n t s are
m ad e separatel y by each pl ai n t i f f an d p recl u de ap pl i cat i on of sec t i on 101
. 106 ( e) ag ai ns te ac h o t he r ; t he y at t e m ptt o di s t i ngu i s h G a rc iao n t hi s b as i s . W hi l e t he Ceba l l o s Fam i l y m ayb e c o r r e c tt hati f o ne pl ai nt i f

f c ho o s es to sue b o t h a Case: 09-10076 Document: 00511011019 Page: 13 Date Filed: 01/22/2010N o. 09- 10076

14 m uni c i pa l i t y andi t s em pl o ye e s t hatel e c t i o n s ho ul d no ti nur e t o t he de t r i m e nt
o f a n o th e rp la in tiff

in th e s a m e m a tt e r , th a t is d e fin itiv e lyn o t t h e ca s e in th is l i t i gati on . H ere, t h e C eball os Fa m i l y j oi n t l y sued a n d all eged t h e sam e causes o f a c tio n a n d th e s a m e fa c ts a g a in s t t h e s a m e d e fe n d a n ts
. T h e yfile d a s in g le
com pl ai n tt h rough t h e sam e att orney. N o one p l ai n t i f f ha s ever act ed or been trea ted sep a ra tel y f rom a n oth er at a n y po i n t i n th e pro cee d i n g s . G a rc ia t h eref ore c on t rol s thi s case, a n d the di st ri ctcourtdi d n oterri n di sm i ssi n g t h ese c la im s a g a in s t B r id g w a te r , P o r r a s , a n d M u ll. IV
. C on cl u si on W e t h u s, R E V E R S E an d R E M A N D the su m m a ryj u d gm en t gra n ted to B ri dg w ateron the § 198 3 cl ai m s and A F F IR M t h e rem ai n der of t h e di st ri ct
cou rt’ s j u d gm en t. Case: 09-10076 Document: 00511011019 Page: 14 Date Filed: 01/22/2010