Court Opinion

ID: 9899956
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-17 23:00:40.734137+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:57.260434
License: Public Domain

Case: 21-51160       Document: 00516972189             Page: 1      Date Filed: 11/17/2023

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

                                             FILED
                                    ____________
                                                                              November 17, 2023
                                      No. 21-51160                               Lyle W. Cayce
                                    ____________                                      Clerk

   Cruz E. Sanchez,

                                                                   Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                           versus

   Sheriff Mike Griffis; Chief Deputy Mancha;
   Captain McNeil; Lieutenant Durham;
   Sergeant Galvan; Corporal Garcia; Officer Salgado;
   Officer Ibarra,

                                             Defendants—Appellees.
                    ______________________________

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Western District of Texas
                              USDC No. 7:20-CV-269
                    ______________________________

   Before Jones, Barksdale, and Elrod, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Appellant Cruz E. Sanchez, proceeding pro se on appeal, was injured
   during an encounter with Officers Benjamin Salgado and Nicholas Ybarra at
   Ector County Detention Center, where he was a pretrial detainee. He sued
          _____________________
          *
              Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion
   should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set
   forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 21-51160        Document: 00516972189             Page: 2      Date Filed: 11/17/2023

                                         No. 21-51160

   several officers, including Officers Salgado and Ybarra, under 42 U.S.C.
   § 1983. His complaint included claims for excessive force and failure to
   supervise and also sought criminal prosecution of Officers Salgado and
   Ybarra. The district court granted summary judgment to the Officers on all
   federal claims and declined to consider any state law claims Sanchez may
   have asserted. Sanchez appealed. 1
           This court reviews a district court’s grant of a motion for summary
   judgment de novo. Linbrugger v. Abercia, 363 F.3d 537, 540 (5th Cir. 2004).
   The summary judgment evidence in this case includes footage of the
   incident. Because video evidence is available, the court is required to “view[]
   the facts in the light depicted by the videotape.” Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S.
   372, 381, 127 S. Ct. 1769, 1776 (2007).
           Government officials “are entitled to qualified immunity . . . unless
   (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the
   unlawfulness of their conduct was clearly established at the time.” District
   of Columbia v. Wesby, 583 U.S. 48, 62–63, 138 S. Ct. 577, 589 (2018) (internal
   quotation marks and citation omitted). To prevail on an excessive force
   claim, a plaintiff must show “that the force purposely or knowingly used
   against him was objectively unreasonable.” Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 576 U.S.
   389, 397, 135 S. Ct. 2466, 2473 (2015). As a pretrial detainee, Sanchez “can
   prevail by providing only objective evidence that the challenged
   governmental action is not rationally related to a legitimate governmental
   objective or that it is excessive in relation to that purpose.” Id. at 398,
   135 S. Ct. at 2473–74. Factors relevant to a determination of reasonableness
   include the relationship between the need for the use of force and the amount
           _____________________
           1
            Sanchez has filed several motions in this court, including one to appoint counsel
   and several seeking production of documents and other evidence. These motions are
   DENIED.

                                                   2
Case: 21-51160       Document: 00516972189            Page: 3    Date Filed: 11/17/2023

                                      No. 21-51160

   of force used, efforts to temper or to limit force, the threat reasonably
   perceived by the officer, the extent of the plaintiff’s injury, and whether the
   plaintiff was resisting. Id. at 397, 135 S. Ct. at 2473.
          Sanchez was classified as a maximum-security inmate due to his
   extensive     criminal   history   and   several     infractions   (for   “erratic,
   uncooperative, and, in some cases, threatening behavior”) he committed
   before the incident. Because of his erratic and aggressive behavior, Sanchez
   was required to be handcuffed and shackled whenever he was transported to
   the medical office to receive treatment for his diabetes. The day of the
   incident, Sanchez refused to be handcuffed for medical transport. It was only
   after Sanchez persisted in his refusals, walking briskly toward the medical
   office with his hands free, that Officer Salgado performed a takedown
   maneuver. The process of handcuffing Sanchez included Officer Salgado
   striking Sanchez twice on the side so that he would remove his hands from
   under his torso. After Officer Salgado, with the help of Officer Ybarra,
   handcuffed Sanchez and pulled him to his feet, the two Officers again
   attempted to transport Sanchez to the medical office. As they approached
   the office, however, Sanchez began pulling away from Officer Ybarra in an
   apparent attempt to free himself. This resulted in his again being taken to
   the ground.
          Sanchez has failed to raise a fact issue on the reasonableness of force
   the Officers used to subdue him. His disobedience of orders and his history
   of erratic and aggressive behavior, including on the day of the incident,
   indicate that the force was not objectively unreasonable, as the district court
   concluded. The Officers are therefore entitled to qualified immunity as to
   Sanchez’s excessive force claim.
          As to Sanchez’s other claims, he certainly does not have a right to have
   either Officer prosecuted for assault. Oliver v. Collins, 914 F.2d 56, 60 (5th

                                               3
Case: 21-51160      Document: 00516972189           Page: 4    Date Filed: 11/17/2023

                                     No. 21-51160

   Cir. 1990). And because his underlying claim for excessive force fails, any
   claims for bystander liability, supervisory liability, municipal liability, or
   conspiracy also fail. See Whitley v. Hanna, 726 F.3d 631, 648–49 (5th Cir.
   2013); Hale v. Townley, 45 F.3d 914, 921 (5th Cir. 1995). Nor will Sanchez’s
   First Amendment claim be considered, as it was raised for the first time on
   appeal. See Leverette v. Louisville Ladder Co., 183 F.3d 339, 342 (5th Cir.
   1999). Finally, Sanchez forfeited any argument as to dismissal without
   prejudice of his state law claims by failing to brief it on appeal. See Biziko v.
   Van Horne, 981 F.3d 418, 419 (5th Cir. 2020).
          The district court’s grant of summary judgment is AFFIRMED.

                                              4