Court Opinion

ID: 9434884
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 00:00:35.694713+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:12:56.173574
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-40719        Document: 00516843488             Page: 1       Date Filed: 08/02/2023

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

                                      No. 22-40719                        FILED
                                    Summary Calendar                 August 2, 2023
                                    ____________                     Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                          Clerk
   Jarvis Livingston,

                                                                    Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                            versus

   State of Texas; John Doe Lopez, In his personal capacity; Jane
   Doe Mendoza, In her personal capacity; John Doe, Assistant District
   Attorney, In his personal capacity; Karl Van Slooten, In his personal
   capacity; City of Yoakum; Anita R. Rodriguez; Carl
   O’Neill; Sean Mooney; Glenn Klander; Billy Goodrich;
   Amanda Orack; Frank Rhodehamel,

                                              Defendants—Appellees.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Southern District of Texas
                                USDC No. 6:21-CV-7
                     ______________________________

   Before Davis, Smith, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-40719         Document: 00516843488               Page: 2      Date Filed: 08/02/2023

                                          No. 22-40719

           Plaintiff-Appellant, Jarvis Livingston, proceeding pro se and in forma
   pauperis, appeals the district court’s summary judgment in favor of
   Defendants-Appellees, police officers with the City of Yoakum Police
   Department, dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims for false arrest and
   excessive force. For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM.
                                                I.
           During a Spears1 hearing conducted by the magistrate judge, Plaintiff
   testified to the following: On July 6, 2019, Plaintiff’s brother and cousin got
   into “an argument” while they were visiting an aunt’s residence in Yoakum,
   Texas. Someone placed a 911 call and reported that “there was a fight [going
   on].” When the police arrived, Plaintiff told his brother that he wanted to go
   home once his brother finished talking with the police. “[T]hen . . . [Officer
   Sarah] Mendoza proceeded to grab [Plaintiff’s] wrist,” so Plaintiff “pulled
   [his] wrist back” and asked why Mendoza was touching him when he had not
   done anything wrong. Minutes later, two other male officers (Officers Lopez
   and Rhodehamel) arrived on the scene.                   Each officer grabbed one of
   Plaintiff’s arms, and one grabbed his neck, and told him to get on the ground,
   telling him he was not under arrest but that he was being detained. Plaintiff
   resisted getting on the ground because he had not “done anything wrong.”
   The officers then took him to the police car, told him he was “going to jail,”
   and then slammed the door and took him to the county jail.

           _____________________
           1
              Spears v. McCotter, 766 F.2d 179, 183 (5th Cir. 1985) (allowing a district court to
   refer in forma pauperis cases to a magistrate judge “to hold an evidentiary hearing ‘in the
   nature of a motion for more definite statement’”). Testimony given at a Spears hearing is
   incorporated into the pleadings. Eason v. Holt, 73 F.3d 600, 603 (5th Cir. 1996).

                                                 2
Case: 22-40719        Document: 00516843488              Page: 3       Date Filed: 08/02/2023

                                          No. 22-40719

           Plaintiff was charged with resisting arrest and public intoxication and
   was bonded out the next day.2 He testified that he believed his arrest was
   unlawful and that the officers used excessive force during the incident in
   violation of his constitutional rights. At the conclusion of the hearing,
   Plaintiff testified that he was seeking thirty million dollars as damages.
           The magistrate judge subsequently recommended that Plaintiff’s
   claims of false arrest and excessive force be stayed pursuant to Heck v.
   Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), because the related criminal cases were still
   pending. The magistrate judge recommended that any remaining claims be
   dismissed with prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) as frivolous, for
   failure to state a claim, and based on immunity.
           After the related criminal cases were dismissed, Plaintiff filed a
   motion to lift the stay, which the magistrate judge granted. After answering
   the complaint, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing
   that Plaintiff’s claims should be dismissed on the basis of qualified immunity.
   The district court granted the motion.
           In granting summary judgment, the district court largely relied on the
   patrol vehicle recordings of the incident which revealed the following: When
   Officer Mendoza arrived on the scene, Plaintiff was walking towards the area
   where Officer Rhodehamel was questioning Plaintiff’s brother about the 911
   call. The manner in which Plaintiff was approaching the men was clearly
   troubling to Officer Mendoza because, after exiting her vehicle, she walked
   towards Plaintiff, attempting to stop his movement and repeatedly instructed
   him to “calm down.” The recordings further indicate that a scuffle then

           _____________________
           2
             Plaintiff’s lawyer told him the resisting arrest charge had been dismissed, but in
   January 2021, Plaintiff was informed that the charge had apparently been changed to
   “interfering with police duties.”

                                                3
Case: 22-40719       Document: 00516843488          Page: 4    Date Filed: 08/02/2023

                                     No. 22-40719

   ensued between Plaintiff and Defendants. During the scuffle, Plaintiff
   continued to resist Defendants’ efforts to calm him down by moving wildly
   and repeatedly yelling at them.
          After much effort, Defendants were able to handcuff Plaintiff and
   move him near a patrol car. When Plaintiff complained that the handcuffs
   were too tight, Officer Lopez loosened them, but Plaintiff continued to be
   belligerent and noncompliant. Although at one point, Plaintiff appeared to
   calm down, his change in behavior was short lived. Officers Lopez and
   Mendoza ultimately informed Plaintiff that he was being arrested for public
   intoxication. Plaintiff challenged his arrest, stating that he had “not [been]
   tested,” but Officer Mendoza responded that Plaintiff did not need to be
   tested under the circumstances because his behavior and the way he was
   talking to them supported his arrest for public intoxication. She additionally
   stated that she could smell alcohol during her interactions with him.
          After being informed that he was being arrested for public
   intoxication, Plaintiff continued to resist Defendants’ efforts to place him in
   the patrol car. But, after one officer called for use of the WRAP restraint
   system, Plaintiff began to cooperate and entered the patrol car. However,
   after entering the car, Plaintiff continued to resist by refusing to put his legs
   in the car. Officer Lopez had to grab Plaintiff’s legs and push Plaintiff into
   the patrol car.     Because of his continued resistance, Officer Lopez
   subsequently filled out a probable cause affidavit for placing Plaintiff in the
   Lavaca County Jail for resisting arrest or transport under Texas Penal Code
   § 38.03(a).
          Based on this evidence, and its determination that Plaintiff was unable
   to come forward with evidence creating a genuine dispute that his
   constitutional rights had been violated, the district court concluded that

                                          4
Case: 22-40719      Document: 00516843488          Page: 5    Date Filed: 08/02/2023

                                    No. 22-40719

   Defendants were entitled to summary judgment under the first prong of the
   qualified immunity analysis. Plaintiff filed a timely notice of appeal.
                                         II.
          This Court reviews the district court’s summary judgment de novo
   applying the same standards as the district court. Buehler v. Dear, 27 F.4th
   969, 979 (5th Cir. 2022). Under Rule 56(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil
   Procedure, summary judgment shall be granted “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.” However, the usual summary-judgment
   burden of proof does not apply when a defendant moves for dismissal based
   on qualified immunity. “Although nominally an affirmative defense, the
   plaintiff has the burden to negate the defense once it is properly raised.”
   Tucker v. City of Shreveport, 998 F.3d 165, 173 (5th Cir. 2021) (citation
   omitted).
          Qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from money
   damages unless a plaintiff can establish that (1) the official violated a
   statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the right was clearly established at
   the time of the challenged conduct. Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 735
   (2011). Courts have the “discretion to decide which of the two prongs of
   qualified-immunity analysis to tackle first.” Id. (citation omitted). In this
   case, the district court determined that Defendants were entitled to qualified
   immunity under the first prong because Plaintiff was unable to establish a
   genuine dispute that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated. As
   explained below, we agree.
          A. False Arrest
          The Fourth Amendment protects “[t]he right of the people to be
   secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable
   searches and seizures.” A warrantless arrest is a reasonable seizure “if the

                                          5
Case: 22-40719          Document: 00516843488                Page: 6       Date Filed: 08/02/2023

                                            No. 22-40719

   officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect committed a crime in
   the officer’s presence.” District of Columbia v. Wesby, 138 S. Ct. 577, 586
   (2018) (citation omitted). “Whether probable cause exists depends upon the
   reasonable conclusion to be drawn from the facts known to the arresting
   officer at the time of the arrest.” Devenpeck v. Alford, 543 U.S. 146, 152
   (2004) (citation omitted). “If an officer has probable cause to believe that an
   individual has committed even a very minor criminal offense in his presence,
   he may, without violating the Fourth Amendment, arrest the offender.”
   Atwater v. City of Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318, 354 (2001).
           Here, Plaintiff was arrested on charges of public intoxication and
   resisting arrest. Under Texas law, a person commits the offense of public
   intoxication “if the person appears in a public place while intoxicated to the
   degree that the person may endanger the person or another.” Tex. Penal
   Code § 49.02(a). A person commits the offense of resisting arrest, search,
   or transportation under Texas law “if he intentionally prevents or obstructs
   a person he knows is a peace officer or a person acting in a peace officer’s
   presence and at his direction from effecting an arrest, search, or
   transportation of the actor or another by using force against the peace officer
   or another.” Tex. Penal Code § 38.03(a).
           As the district court determined, the record evidence in this case
   establishes that, based on the facts known to Defendants on the night of the
   incident, Defendants had probable cause to arrest Plaintiff for public
   intoxication and resisting arrest.3 Specifically, the patrol car recordings make

           _____________________
           3
              Under Supreme Court precedent, the existence of probable cause for any offense
   is sufficient to defeat a claim of false arrest, even if the offense giving rise to probable cause
   is different from “the offense identified by the arresting officer at the time of arrest.” See
   Devenpeck, 543 U.S. at 153. Although not specifically discussed herein, we agree with the
   district court that probable cause also existed to arrest Plaintiff for the crimes of

                                                   6
Case: 22-40719       Document: 00516843488            Page: 7      Date Filed: 08/02/2023

                                       No. 22-40719

   clear that when Officer Mendoza arrived on the scene, the manner in which
   Plaintiff was approaching Officer Rhodehamel, who was questioning
   Plaintiff’s brother, was clearly troubling to Officer Mendoza. When she
   exited her vehicle, she attempted to stop Plaintiff’s movement and
   repeatedly instructed him to “calm down.” During the subsequent scuffle
   between Plaintiff and Defendants, Plaintiff continued to resist Defendants’
   efforts to calm him down by moving wildly and repeatedly yelling at them.
   After being handcuffed (after much effort) and informed that he was being
   arrested for public intoxication, Plaintiff resisted Defendants’ efforts to place
   him in the patrol car. Once he did enter the patrol car, Plaintiff continued to
   resist by refusing to put his legs in the car.
          We agree with the district court that based on Plaintiff’s behavior and
   demeanor, Plaintiff was a danger to himself or others as a result of
   intoxication and that Defendants had probable cause to arrest him for public
   intoxication. See Tex. Penal Code § 49.02(a). We further conclude that
   after being informed of his arrest for public intoxication, Plaintiff resisted
   getting into the patrol car and that probable cause existed to arrest him for
   resisting arrest and transport in violation of Texas Penal Code § 38.03(a).
          Plaintiff contends in his appellate briefing that during the incident, he
   was only “verbally resistant,” that he was just trying to stop Officer
   Rhodehamel from “being rude to [his] little brother,” and that he was
   exercising his First Amendment right to speech. As set forth above, the
   patrol car recordings of the incident indicate otherwise. They make clear that
   Plaintiff was more than “verbally resistant.” The video recording shows that
   Plaintiff physically resisted Defendants’ requests to calm down and that it

          _____________________
   interference with public duties and disorderly conduct under Texas law. See Tex. Penal
   Code §§ 38.15(a)(1), 42.01(a)(1).

                                             7
Case: 22-40719       Document: 00516843488             Page: 8      Date Filed: 08/02/2023

                                        No. 22-40719

   took considerable physical effort for Defendants to gain control of Plaintiff.
   Plaintiff’s behavior was irrational, belligerent, combative, and noncompliant.
   Although Plaintiff contends that he did nothing wrong, we are not required
   to accept factual allegations “that are ‘blatantly contradicted’” by video and
   audio recordings taken at the scene. Buehler, 27 F.4th at 979-80 (citation
   omitted). We conclude that the district court did not err in determining that
   Defendants are entitled to summary judgment under the first prong of the
   qualified immunity analysis because Plaintiff was unable to show his Fourth
   Amendment rights were violated when Defendants arrested him.
           B. Excessive Force
           To succeed on an excessive force claim, Plaintiff must demonstrate
   that he suffered “(1) an injury (2) which resulted directly and only from the
   use of force that was excessive to the need and (3) the force used was
   objectively unreasonable.” Glenn v. City of Tyler, 242 F.3d 307, 314 (5th Cir.
   2001) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). The district court
   determined that Plaintiff was unable to establish any of these elements.
           Plaintiff makes no argument challenging the district court’s
   determination regarding the elements of his excessive force claim until his
   reply brief.4 And, even then, Plaintiff does not challenge the district court’s
   determination that he was unable to show “an injury” for purposes of an
   excessive force claim. Although we liberally construe pro se briefs, even pro
   se litigants must brief arguments in order to preserve them. See Yohey v.
   Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). Therefore, Plaintiff has waived
   the issue whether he established “an injury” by failing to brief it on appeal.

           _____________________
           4
            Ordinarily, arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief are considered
   waived. See City of Abilene v. U.S. E.P.A., 325 F.3d 657, 661 n.1 (5th Cir. 2003).

                                              8
Case: 22-40719     Document: 00516843488         Page: 9   Date Filed: 08/02/2023

                                  No. 22-40719

                                      III.
         Based on the foregoing, the district court’s summary judgment in
   favor of Defendants-Appellees, police officers with the City of Yoakum
   Police Department, dismissing Plaintiff’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims for false
   arrest and excessive force is AFFIRMED.

                                       9