Court Opinion

ID: 9916987
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-11 01:00:34.10901+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:26:16.634670
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-20644     Document: 00517028986        Page: 1    Date Filed: 01/10/2024

           United States Court of Appeals
                for the Fifth Circuit
                               ____________                             United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                 Fifth Circuit

                                  22-20644
                                                                               FILED
                                                                        January 10, 2024
                               ____________
                                                                          Lyle W. Cayce
   Akeem Bagley,                                                               Clerk

                                                           Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                      versus

   Rudy Guillen,

                                           Defendant—Appellant.
                  ______________________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Southern District of Texas
                            USDC No. 4:21-CV-1335
                  _____________________________

   Before Graves, Higginson, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
   James C. Ho, Circuit Judge:
         Two established principles of law govern this qualified immunity
   appeal. First, it may be objectively reasonable under certain circumstances
   for police officers to use physical force when a person refuses to comply
   with an officer’s lawful commands—but not after that person has begun to
   comply. Second, to the extent that any material fact dispute remains after
   viewing the facts in light of the available video evidence, the court should
   deny summary judgment on grounds of qualified immunity.
Case: 22-20644      Document: 00517028986           Page: 2     Date Filed: 01/10/2024

                                       22-20644

           These principles require us to permit the excessive force claim
   presented in this case to proceed. At a minimum, the video evidence
   permits a jury to infer that the officer used force after Plaintiff had already
   begun to comply. If anything, the video suggests a possible fact dispute as
   to whether he was ever non-compliant to begin with. We accordingly
   dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
                                           I.
           This appeal stems from a series of encounters between Akeem
   Bagley and members of the Harris County Constable’s Office on May 30,
   2019.
           The first encounter took place during a police effort to cite drivers
   for parking too close to a county railroad. Bagley received one of those
   citations. Officer Rudy Guillen, the sole defendant in this appeal, did not
   give Bagley his ticket, but participated in the ticketing effort.
           The second encounter took place at a nearby gas station. Shortly
   after receiving his parking ticket, Bagley drove to the gas station. Several
   officers, including Guillen, were there when Bagley arrived. The parties
   dispute whether Bagley followed the officers or happened to go to the same
   gas station. Either way, after Bagley arrived at the station, he and Guillen
   entered a heated exchange about his ticket.          Bagley began filming the
   exchange on his cell phone. He can be heard shouting at Guillen and
   questioning the legitimacy of his ticket.
           The officers eventually left the station. Bagley continued to film as
   he got into his car. “This is what we doing,” he said to himself, before he
   pulled out of the gas station and drove in the same direction as the officers.
   Bagley continued to record while driving, occasionally muttering to himself
   about the officers’ driving behavior. After approximately three minutes, the
   police cars turned left.      Bagley also turned left.      Still recording, he

                                           2
Case: 22-20644      Document: 00517028986         Page: 3    Date Filed: 01/10/2024

                                      22-20644

   commented on the officers’ failure to use a turn a signal. At the same time,
   his car emitted a noise that sounds like a turn signal. Following the turn,
   one of the police cars activated its sirens. Bagley stated to himself, “I gotta
   go this way, so you can pull me over all you want to.” He then pulled to the
   side of the road and rolled down his window.
          What transpired at this traffic stop is the core dispute in this case.
   Led by Guillen, the officers approached Bagley, who remained in his car
   with the window rolled down. All events are captured on video by Bagley,
   who continued recording, and they are corroborated by the video taken by
   Guillen’s body-worn camera. The following exchange between Guillen and
   Bagley took place:

          x Guillen: “Put your hands on the steering wheel.”
          x Bagley moves his left hand onto the steering wheel.
          x Guillen: “Let me see your driver’s license. Let me see your
            driver’s license.”
          x Bagley: “For—could I ask what’s the reason?”
          x Guillen: “Let me see your driver’s license, sir, that’s all I’m
             asking you. You better comply with me.”
          x Bagley: “I’m asking what’s the reason.”
          x Guillen: “If you [do] not, I’m gonna arrest you. Let me see your
             driver’s license.”
          x At this point on Guillen’s video, Bagley can be seen moving his
            left hand toward his pocket.
          x Bagley: “What do you need to see my driver’s license for?”
          x Guillen: “Let me see your driver’s license, sir.”
          x Bagley: “If there’s not—what’s the traffic stop that you pulled
             me over for?”
          x Guillen: “Let me see your driver’s license, sir.”

                                         3
Case: 22-20644      Document: 00517028986        Page: 4    Date Filed: 01/10/2024

                                      22-20644

          x Bagley: “If there’s no reason, then—I didn’t break any laws
             right now. I used every turn signal. I do not have to give you my
             driver’s license.”
          x Guillen: “You did not use the turn signal.”
          x Bagley: “Yes I did. You not—”
          This exchange lasted approximately thirty seconds. At that point,
   Guillen opened Bagley’s car door and instructed him multiple times in
   quick succession to “[g]et out the car. Get out the car. Get out the car.”
   Bagley unbuckled his seatbelt, muttering “man,” and exited the car. While
   Bagley was retracting his seatbelt and before he was fully out of the car,
   Guillen deployed a taser in Bagley’s direction but did not injure him.
          Once Bagley had exited the car, Guillen, still pointing the taser at
   him, instructed him: “Turn around. Put your hands behind you.” Bagley
   turned to face his car but moved his hands in front of himself. Guillen
   knocked Bagley’s phone from his hands over Bagley’s protests. He then
   pressed the taser into Bagley’s back and deployed it.
          Bagley’s video ends following the tasing, but Guillen’s bodycam
   footage shows what happened next. Guillen continued commanding Bagley
   to put his hands behind his back. Bagley fell to the ground, where he was
   handcuffed by another officer.
          All told, fifteen seconds elapsed between Guillen’s first order to
   leave the car and the successful tasing, and eight seconds between Bagley
   leaving the car and that tasing.
          After the tasing and Bagley’s arrest, a magistrate judge found
   probable cause that Bagley had committed the misdemeanor offense of
   interference with public duties. The State of Texas later requested that the

                                         4
Case: 22-20644      Document: 00517028986         Page: 5     Date Filed: 01/10/2024

                                      22-20644

   court dismiss the action for lack of probable cause. No further criminal
   proceedings are reflected in the record.
          Bagley then sued Guillen under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging excessive
   force, unlawful arrest, and illegal detention in violation of the Fourth
   Amendment. Guillen moved for summary judgment on all claims. The
   district court granted qualified immunity with respect to the unlawful arrest
   and illegal detention claims. But the court denied qualified immunity as to
   Bagley’s excessive force claim.      Guillen timely appealed the denial of
   qualified immunity.
                                         II.
          We begin by stating the legal standards that govern this qualified
   immunity appeal.
          We review the denial of qualified immunity at the summary
   judgment stage de novo. See, e.g., Flores v. City of Palacios, 381 F.3d 391, 394
   (5th Cir. 2004). Summary judgment is appropriate “if the movant shows
   that there is 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). We
   “view the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and
   draw all reasonable inferences in its favor.” Deville v. Marcantel, 567 F.3d
   156, 164 (5th Cir. 2009). Factual allegations arising out of events captured
   on video, however, are viewed “in the light depicted by the videotape.”
   Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 381 (2007). “When opposing parties tell two
   different stories, one of which is blatantly contradicted by the record, so
   that no reasonable jury could believe it, a court should not adopt that
   version of the facts for purposes of ruling on a motion for summary
   judgment.” Id. at 380.
          Officers are entitled to qualified immunity from suit unless the
   plaintiff “has adduced sufficient evidence to raise a genuine issue of

                                          5
Case: 22-20644      Document: 00517028986           Page: 6     Date Filed: 01/10/2024

                                       22-20644

   material fact suggesting [the officers’] conduct violated an actual
   constitutional right,” and the officers’ actions were “objectively
   unreasonable in light of clearly established law at the time of the conduct in
   question.” Brumfield v. Hollins, 551 F.3d 322, 326 (5th Cir. 2008). See also,
   e.g., Roque v. Harvel, 993 F.3d 325, 334 (5th Cir. 2021). Our court has
   “routinely rel[ied] on our own cases to determine whether a rule of law has
   been clearly established.” Boyd v. McNamara, 74 F.4th 662, 670–71 (5th
   Cir. 2023). See id. at 670 n.4, 671 (collecting cases). See also, e.g., Sanchez v.
   Oliver, 995 F.3d 461, 466 (5th Cir. 2021) (determining “clearly established”
   law based on “the law of this circuit”); Joseph ex rel. Est. of Joseph v.
   Bartlett, 981 F.3d 319, 341–42 (5th Cir. 2020) (“[A] number of our
   opinions . . . conclude that these principles were the clearly established
   law.”); Izen v. Catalina, 382 F.3d 566, 574 (5th Cir. 2004) (determining
   “clearly established federal law” based on “the law of this circuit”).
                                          III.
          We agree with the district court that Bagley has presented sufficient
   evidence of excessive force to defeat qualified immunity at the summary
   judgment stage. At the time of the conduct in question, it was clearly
   established that an officer may not use force on a suspect who is complying
   with his commands. See, e.g., Darden v. City of Fort Worth, 880 F.3d 722,
   728–30 (5th Cir. 2018); Newman v. Guedry, 703 F.3d 757, 761–64 (5th Cir.
   2012) (objectively unreasonable for officers to injure a man whose
   “behavior [does] not rise to the level of active resistance”) (internal
   quotation mark omitted); see also Joseph, 981 F.3d at 342 (“Officers engage
   in excessive force when they physically strike a suspect who is not resisting
   arrest.”). As we have long held, “[c]laims of excessive force are fact-
   intensive” and “depend[] on the facts and circumstances of each particular
   case.” Newman, 703 F.3d at 761. “[R]elevant considerations include the
   severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect posed an immediate

                                           6
Case: 22-20644        Document: 00517028986       Page: 7     Date Filed: 01/10/2024

                                      22-20644

   threat to the safety of the officers or others, and whether he was actively
   resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight.” Id. (cleaned up).
             Naturally, officers may use force in ways “that corresponded to [a
   suspect’s] escalating verbal and physical resistance.”        Poole v. City of
   Shreveport, 691 F.3d 624, 629 (5th Cir. 2012). But where a suspect initially
   resists, force “must be reduced once [he] has been subdued.” Joseph, 981
   F.3d at 335. Once a suspect is “subdued” and “no longer resisting, an
   officer’s subsequent use of force is excessive.” Carroll v. Ellington, 800
   F.3d 154, 177 (5th Cir. 2015). See also Joseph, 981 F.3d at 341 (“continuing
   to inflict force despite [a suspect] committing no crime, posing no threat,
   and giving no active resistance” violates clearly established law); Newman,
   703 F.3d at 764 n.8 (officer “should have known that he could not continue
   to shock the suspect with the taser after he was no longer resisting arrest”)
   (cleaned up).      An officer cannot use force against a citizen who has
   “committed no crime, posed no threat to anyone’s safety, and did not resist
   the officers or fail to comply with a command.” Newman, 703 F.3d at 762,
   764.
             Bagley has presented sufficient evidence of excessive force to
   warrant denial of qualified immunity at the summary judgment stage. To
   begin with, he was pulled over for failing to use a turn signal. At most, this
   is a minor traffic violation. See, e.g., Ducksworth v. Landrum, 62 F.4th 209,
   220 (5th Cir. 2023) (Oldham, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part)
   (“Even assuming Ducksworth committed a crime, it was at most failing to
   leave the car wash when Welch commanded him to do so. Welch cites no
   authority to suggest such a ‘crime’ is severe enough to warrant tasing a
   man. Even on the (aggressive) assumption that Ducksworth could be
   arrested, he posed no threat.”). And the car noise heard on video when
   Bagley made the turn could permit a jury to infer that he did use a turn
   signal.

                                          7
Case: 22-20644        Document: 00517028986      Page: 8    Date Filed: 01/10/2024

                                     22-20644

          Moreover, Bagley unambiguously complied with Guillen’s command
   to exit and turn toward his vehicle. Yet Guillen tased him anyway—at first
   unsuccessfully while Bagley’s seatbelt was retracting, and again successfully
   as Bagley was turned toward the car.
          For his part, Guillen maintains that Bagley had not placed his hands
   behind him as directed. But the video evidence permits the inference that
   Guillen had already begun tasing him well before he gave Bagley a
   reasonable opportunity to comply.
          Guillen also contends that tasing alone is insufficient to constitute
   excessive force, at least in the absence of some lasting physical injury. But
   the video evidence permits a jury to conclude that the tasing caused Bagley
   significant pain. And that’s sufficient to state a claim of excessive force.
   See id. at 219–20 (“The videos show Ducksworth screaming in agony, as
   anyone would, when he’s tased. . . . That’s injury.”). As our court has
   repeatedly observed, “‘as long as a plaintiff has suffered “some injury,”
   even relatively insignificant injuries and purely psychological injuries will
   prove cognizable when resulting from an officer’s unreasonably excessive
   force.’”    Solis v. Serrett, 31 F.4th 975, 982 (5th Cir. 2022) (quoting
   Alexander v. City of Round Rock, 854 F.3d 298, 309 (5th Cir. 2017)).
          In sum, the video evidence permits (if not compels) a jury to
   conclude that Bagley was attempting to comply with Guillen’s commands at
   the time he was tased. That’s sufficient to overcome qualified immunity at
   the summary judgment stage. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want
   of jurisdiction.

                                          8