Court Opinion

ID: 9398374
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-31 00:00:54.686854+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:33.111309
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-10022        Document: 00516768371             Page: 1      Date Filed: 05/30/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________
                                                                               United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit
                                      No. 23-10022
                                    Summary Calendar                                   FILED
                                    ____________                                     May 30, 2023
                                                                                 Lyle W. Cayce
   Eric Lamar Ellis,                                                                  Clerk

                                                                    Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                            versus

   Rubi Garza-Lopez; Brian Marshall Barrier,

                                              Defendants—Appellees.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Northern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 3:22-CV-675
                     ______________________________

   Before Smith, Southwick, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Plaintiff Eric Lamar Ellis, pro se, brought a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action
   against two Irving police officers, Defendants Rubi Garza-Lopez and Brian
   Marshall Barrier, in their individual capacities, based on his detention and
   subsequent search. The Defendants moved for summary judgment based on
   qualified immunity. The district court dismissed the claims against them.

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-10022       Document: 00516768371         Page: 2    Date Filed: 05/30/2023

                                    No. 23-10022

   Because Ellis cannot establish a constitutional violation of his Fourth
   Amendment rights, we AFFIRM.
          On August 4, 2021, the Defendants as well as Officer Josh
   Weinschreider saw Ellis’s vehicle parked at a city park at 4:52 a.m. Pursuant
   to a city ordinance, the park was closed at that time, and the park hours were
   clearly posted.
          The Defendant and Officer Weinschreider approached Ellis’s car,
   where they observed him either asleep or unconscious. The three officers
   shone their flashlights and claimed they could smell marijuana coming from
   Ellis’s vehicle’s open windows without needing to put any part of their bodies
   into his vehicle. After Ellis awoke, Officer Garza-Lopez asked him to exit the
   vehicle and patted him down. The Defendants then searched his car for
   approximately five minutes before they found marijuana in a grocery bag in
   Ellis’s glove box. During the search, Ellis admitted to Officer Weinschreider
   that he had marijuana in his car and that it would not be hard to find. After
   they discovered the marijuana, the Defendants gave Ellis the choice to
   destroy the drugs or receive a citation for possession of marijuana. Ellis chose
   to destroy the drugs, and the Defendants released him.
          Ellis sued the Defendants, alleging violations of his Fourth and Eighth
   Amendment rights. The Defendants asserted their entitlement to qualified
   immunity in their answer. The Magistrate Judge ordered that the qualified
   immunity issue be resolved through expedited motions for summary
   judgment. The Defendants filed motions for summary judgment, and the
   Magistrate Judge recommended that the district court dismiss Ellis’s claims
   against the Defendant in their entirety. The district court accepted the
   Magistrate Judge’s recommendation and dismissed the suit with prejudice
   against the Defendants. Ellis timely appealed.

                                              2
Case: 23-10022      Document: 00516768371           Page: 3     Date Filed: 05/30/2023

                                     No. 23-10022

          We review the grant of summary judgment de novo. Nickell v. Beau
   View of Biloxi, LLC, 636 F.3d 752, 754 (5th Cir. 2011). Summary judgment is
   properly granted only when, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable
   to the nonmoving party, “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).
          “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials
   from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly
   established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person
   would have known.” Thompson v. Mercer, 762 F.3d 433, 436 (5th Cir. 2014)
   (quotation marks and citations omitted). “Qualified immunity gives
   government officials breathing room to make reasonable but mistaken
   judgments and protects all but the plainly incompetent or those who
   knowingly violate the law.” Id. at 437 (quotation marks and citations
   omitted). “A good-faith assertion of qualified immunity alters the usual
   summary judgment burden of proof, shifting it to the plaintiff to show that
   the defense is not available.” Cass v. City of Abilene, 814 F.3d 721, 728 (5th
   Cir. 2016) (quotation marks and citations omitted).            The “qualified-
   immunity inquiry is two-pronged.” Cunningham v. Castloo, 983 F.3d 185, 190
   (5th Cir. 2020). We ask (1) “whether the facts, viewed in the light most
   favorable to the party asserting the injury, show that the official’s conduct
   violated a constitutional right,” and (2) “whether the right was ‘clearly
   established.’” Id. at 190–91. “We can analyze the prongs in either order or
   resolve the case on a single prong.” Id. at 191 (quotation marks and citation
   omitted).
          Ellis alleges that he was subjected to cruel and unusual punishment in
   violation of his Eighth Amendment rights because he was directed to destroy
   his marijuana or receive a citation. “The Eighth Amendment ensures the
   safety of convicted prisoners.” Baughman v. Hickman, 935 F.3d 302, 306 (5th

                                               3
Case: 23-10022      Document: 00516768371          Page: 4    Date Filed: 05/30/2023

                                    No. 23-10022

   Cir. 2019). Therefore, Ellis’s complaint about being ordered to destroy the
   marijuana found in his vehicle does not present an Eighth Amendment issue.
          Ellis also alleges under Section 1983 that the Defendants violated his
   Fourth Amendment rights when they seized him and searched his vehicle
   without a warrant. This search, though, was not a violation of Ellis’s
   constitutional rights. Reasonable suspicion allowed Ellis to be detained, and
   they had probable cause to suspect him of a crime and therefore search his
   vehicle. See Carroll v. Ellington, 800 F.3d 154, 170–71 (5th Cir. 2015); United
   States v. Fields, 456 F.3d 519, 523 (5th Cir. 2006). The Defendants and
   Officer Weinschreider each could smell marijuana emanating from the open
   car windows. There is established law that smelling marijuana provides
   sufficient probable cause to conduct a warrantless search. Bazan v. Whitfield,
   754 F. App’x 280, 281 (5th Cir. 2019), cert. denied, 140 S. Ct. 125 (2019)
   (citing United States v. Reed, 882 F.2d 147, 149 (5th Cir. 1989).
          We can “resolve the case on a single prong” of the qualified immunity
   analysis. See Cunningham, 983 F.3d at 191. Ellis has not shown that the
   Defendants violated his Fourth or Eighth Amendment rights. Therefore, the
   Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.
          AFFIRMED.

                                             4