Document: Cite as: 572 U. S. ____ (2014) 1 Per Curiam SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ROBERT R. TOLAN v. JEFFREY WAYNE COTTON ON PETITION FOR WRIT CERTIORARI TO APPEALS FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 13–551. Decided May 5, 2014 PER CURIAM. During the early morning hours of New Year’s Eve, 2008, police sergeant Jeffrey Cotton fired three bullets at Robert Tolan; one those hit its target and punc- tured Tolan’s right lung. At time shooting, Tolan was unarmed on his parents’ front porch about 15 to 20 feet away from Cotton. sued, alleging that Cot- ton had exercised excessive force in violation Fourth Amendment. The District Court granted summary judg- ment Cotton, Fifth Circuit affirmed, reasoning regardless whether used force, he entitled qualified immunity because did not violate any clearly established right. 713 F.3d 299 (2013). In articulating factual context case, failed adhere axiom ruling a motion for judgment, “[t]he evidence nonmovant is be believed, all justifiable inferences are drawn favor.” Anderson Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). For reason, we vacate decision remand case further proceedings consistent with this opinion. I A following facts, which view light most favorable Tolan, taken record opinions below. around 2:00 December 31, John Edwards, officer, patrol Bellaire, Texas, when noticed black Nissan 2 sport utility vehicle turning quickly onto residential street. officer watched park side street house. Two men exited: cousin, Anthony Cooper. Edwards attempted enter license plate number into computer squad car. But keyed an incorrect character; instead entering 696BGK, entered 695BGK. That matched stolen same color make. This match caused car’s send auto- matic message other units, informing them found vehicle. exited cruiser, drew service pistol ordered Cooper ground. He accused having re- sponded, “That’s true.” Record 1295. And ex- plained, my car.” Ibid. then complied officer’s demand lie face-down home’s porch. As it turned out, were home where lived parents. Hearing commo- tion, parents door their paja- mas. attempt keep misunderstanding escalating something more, father instructed down, say nothing. remained facedown. told believed response, identified as son, mother explained belonged family no crime been committed. explained, hands air, “[T]his nephew. son. We live here. house.” Id., 2059. similarly offered, “[S]ir big mistake. car stolen. . That’s our 2075. While continued ground 3 silence, radioed assistance. Shortly there- after, Sergeant arrived scene pistol. reiter- ated she her husband owned both driving these events unfolding. stand against family’s garage door. response Cotton’s order, To- lan’s asked, “[A]re you kidding me? We’ve her[e] years. never anything like hap- pen before.” 2077; see also id., 1465. parties disagree what happened next. testified during criminal trial1 grabbed arm slammed such fell 2035, 2078–2080. pushed 2479. addition, offered testimony photographic demonstrate enough leave bruises arms back lasted days. 2078–2079, 2089–2091. By contrast, deposition escorting garage, flipped up him get off her. 1043. know left but not. 1044. dispute manner responded. trial upon seeing being pushed, 1249, rose knees, 1928. feet. —————— described here led indictment Harris County, aggravated assault by public servant. 299, 303 (CA5 2013). acquitted. part civil action. 2066–2087. 4 1051–1052, 1121. Both agree exclaimed, roughly away, F.3d, 303, “[G]et your fucking mom.” shots Tolan. came verbal warning. 2019, 2080. One chest, collapsing lung piercing liver. survived, suffered life-altering injury disrupted budding professional baseball career causes experience pain daily basis. B 2009, Cooper, filed suit Southern claims under Rev. Stat. §1979, 42 C. §1983. claimed, among things, Amendment.2 After discovery, moved arguing doctrine barred suit. immunizes government officials dam- ages suits unless conduct has violated judgment ton. 854 F. Supp. 2d 444 (SD Tex. 2012). It reasoned use unreasonable therefore 477–478. different 299. declined decide actions complaint alleged officers’ Equal Protection Clause extent they motivated Cooper’s race. 444, 465 addi- mother. 468. Those claims, dismissed, 465, 470, before Court. 5 Instead, held even if Amend- ment, 306. reaching conclusion, began noting shot “it deadly harbored objective rea- sonable belief suspect presented ‘immediate threat [his] safety.’ ” 306 (quoting Deville Marcantel, 567 156, 167 2009)). Appeals overcome qualified-immunity bar “an objectively-reasonable position could have be- lieved” “presented safety officers.’ 307.3 support court relied facts: “dimly-lit”; “re- fus[ed] orders remain quiet calm”; words amounted “verba[l] threa[t].” Most critically, purported fact “moving intervene in” handling mother, 305, reasonably feared life, 307. Accord- ingly, held, estab- lished law shooting denied rehearing en banc. 538 Fed. Appx. 374 Three judges voted grant rehearing. Judge Dennis dissent, contending panel opinion “fail[ed] address that, viewed argues incorrectly analyzed reason- ableness beliefs second prong analysis rather than first. See Pet. Cert. 12, 20. Because rule favor narrow erred application stand- ard, express additional argument. 6 plaintiff, creates genuine issues material objectively [Tolan] posed immediate, significant substantial him.” 377. II resolving questions sum- mary courts engage two-pronged inquiry. first asks “[t]aken party asserting injury, show [federal] right[.]” Saucier Katz, 533 194, 201 (2001). When plaintiff alleges investigation or arrest, federal issue Amendment seizures. Graham Connor, 490 386, 394 (1989). inquiry requires balancing “ ‘the nature quality intrusion individual’s interests importance gov- ernmental justify intrusion.’ Tennessee Garner, 471 1, 8 (1985); Graham, supra, 396. question “clearly lished” violation. Hope Pelzer, 536 730, 739 (2002). Governmental actors “shielded liability damages ‘clearly statutory constitutional rights reasonable person would known.’ “[T]he salient state law” incident provided “fair warning” defendants “that [conduct] uncon- stitutional.” 741. Courts discretion order 7 two prongs. Pearson Callahan, 555 223, 236 (2009). either prong, may resolve disputes seek- ing judgment. Brosseau Haugen, 543 195, n. (2004) (per curiam); Saucier, 201; Hope, 733, 1. specific immunity; simply more general “judge’s function” “to weigh determine truth matter there trial.” Anderson, U.S., 249. Summary appropriate only “the movant shows law.” Rule Civ. Proc. 56(a). making determi- nation, must “in opposing party.” Adickes H. Kress & Co., 398 144, 157 (1970); 255. Our cases illustrate drawing nonmovant, when, here, decides clearly-established standard. searches seizures, should define established” basis “specific case.” Creighton, 483 635, 640–641 (1987). Accordingly, take care case’s “context” imports genuinely disputed propositions. Brosseau, 198 (inquiring ‘in case’ construing “facts to” nonmovant). holding law, evi- dence respect central facts case. failing credit contradicted some key conclusions, improperly “weigh[ed] evidence” resolved moving party, First, Tolans’ “dimly-lit.” appears as- sessment statements ‘fairly dark,’ lit gas lamp ‘decorative.’ 302. own deposition, however, asked “more decorative illuminating.” 1552. said Moreover, stated flood- lights shone driveway incident, 2496, acknowledged motion-activated 1034. confirmed “not darkness.” 2498–2499. Second, “refus[ed] calm,” thereby “com- pound[ing]” im- mediate officers.” 307 (internal quotation marks omitted). too, directly contradictory evidence. Al- though repeatedly informed officers parked, hus- band, how calmly information. 9 “very agitated” spoke officers. 1032–1033. neither “aggravated” nor “agitated.” 2075, 2077. Third, concluded “shouting,” 306, 308, “verbally threatening” 307, moments shooting. noted, agree, while grabbing “was screaming.” 2544. jury infer words, con- text, amount statement intent inflict harm. Cf. United States White, 258 374, 383 2001) (“A ‘[a] communicated physical harm’ Black’s Law Dictionary 1480 (6th ed. 1990))); Morris Noe, 672 1185, 1196 (CA10 2012) (inferring “Why talking Mama way” constitute “overt threa[t]”). cause bruising 2078–2079. well heard threat, son’s plea continue Fourth, inferred Cotton’s” interaction 305; 308 (characterizing behavior “abruptly attempting approach Cotton,” “inflam[ing] already tense situation”). credited Edwards’ account “[i]n crouch” “charging position” looking going move forward. 1121–1122. 10 trial, knees him, 1928, corroborated 2081. “wasn’t anywhere,” 2502, emphasized “jump up,” Considered together, lead inescapable conclusion below seeking properly acknowledge motion. “this equipped correct every perceived error coming lower courts,” Boag MacDougall 454 364, 366 (1982) (O’Connor, J., concurring), reflects clear misapprehension standards precedents. 197–198 (summarily reversing standard”); Florida Dept. Health Rehabili- tative Servs. Nursing Home Assn., 450 147, 150 (1981) curiam) “be reconciled principles set out” Court’s sovereign jurisprudence). witnesses sides come perceptions, recollections, potential biases. reason generally juries adversarial system. weighing contrary competent evidence, neglected fundamental principle stage, nonmoving party. Applying regard lighting, mother’s demeanor, shouted overt positioning 11 say, course, sider, might contribute sonableness law. Nor do vio- lated Circuit’s so can whether, favor, * petition certiorari NAACP Legal De- fense Educational Fund’s file amicus curiae brief granted. vacated, remanded sistent ordered. ALITO, concurring JUSTICE whom SCALIA joins, curring takes actions. grants writ certiorari, summarily vacates Appeals. granting plenary review Members custom- arily registered dissents, note, sets precedent followed cases, will very sub- stantially alter practice. See, e.g., rarely asserted consists erroneous findings misapplication law”); Shapiro, K. Geller, T. Bishop, E. Hartnett, D. Himmelfarb, Supreme Practice §5.12(c)(3), p. 352 (10th 2013) (“[E]rror correction outside mainstream functions ‘compelling reasons’ govern certiorari”). experience, percentage appeals each year present just quite falls large category. There confusion standard applied motion, invoked 304 Thus, relevant sufficient appeals, presenting utterly routine. important parties, true great many fall On merits necessarily respects characterization concur

Category: 1