Court Opinion

ID: 9396961
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-24 00:00:20.965192+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:20.539590
License: Public Domain

Case: 20-30507     Document: 00516760613       Page: 1    Date Filed: 05/23/2023

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

                               ____________                               FILED
                                                                      May 23, 2023
                                No. 20-30507                         Lyle W. Cayce
                               ____________                               Clerk

   Amber Scott, Individually and on behalf of her minor children, M.M.,
   R.R., and A.G.R.,

                                                         Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                     versus

   City of Mandeville; Donald J. Villere, Individually and in his
   capacity as Mayor, City of Mandeville; Mandeville Police
   Department; Gerald Sticker, Chief, Individually and in his
   capacity as Chief of the Mandeville Police Department; Terry Guillory,
   Individually and in his capacity as an Officer of the Mandeville Police
   Department; Greater New Orleans Expressway
   Commission; Causeway Police Department; Nick
   Congemi, Individually and in his capacity as Chief of the Causeway Police
   Department; Scott Huff, Individually and in his capacity as an Officer of
   the Causeway Police Department,

                                           Defendants—Appellees.
                  ______________________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Eastern District of Louisiana
                           USDC No. 2:18-CV-8175
                  ______________________________

   Before Richman, Chief Judge, and Smith and Graves, Circuit Judges.
Case: 20-30507        Document: 00516760613              Page: 2      Date Filed: 05/23/2023

                                         No. 20-30507

   Priscilla Richman, Chief Judge:
           Amber Scott was arrested for driving while intoxicated. She sued
   under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and related state laws. The district court granted
   summary judgment to the defendants, dismissing all of Scott’s claims. On
   appeal, Scott contests the summary judgment for the § 1983 claims of false
   arrest and excessive force along with the state law claims of false arrest,
   excessive force, negligence, and vicarious liability. Finding her appeal
   without merit, we affirm on all counts.
                                               I
           On September 18, 2017, a 911 caller reported to the Mandeville Police
   Department that a “really intoxicated driver” was “all over the road.” The
   caller expressed concern that the driver would cause a severe accident and
   described the situation as “very stressful.” Shortly thereafter, an officer of
   the Mandeville Police Department observed the reported vehicle crossing
   the fog lines on the side of the road and striking a curb. The officer pulled
   over the vehicle, which was driven by Amber Scott. Scott’s minor children
   were also in the vehicle. 1 The following events were captured on video and
   audio recordings.
           After being pulled over, Scott told the officer that she had recently
   been in an accident, which caused her car to pull to the right. Scott stated
   that she had not consumed any alcohol and was not on any medication. A
   second officer to arrive, Officer Guillory of the Mandeville Police
   Department, conducted a series of field sobriety tests on Scott. As a result
   of the tests, Officer Guillory concluded that she was not under the influence
   of alcohol. The first officer to the scene informed Officer Guillory that he
           _____________________
           1
             The number of children present is disputed in the record; Scott’s appellate brief
   states there were two in the car.

                                               2
Case: 20-30507      Document: 00516760613          Page: 3   Date Filed: 05/23/2023

                                    No. 20-30507

   had observed Scott strike the curb with her vehicle. Officer Guillory then
   contacted Officer Huff of the Causeway Police Department, a drug
   recognition expert, and requested that he perform additional testing on Scott.
          Before Officer Huff’s arrival, Scott informed two officers that she had
   recently undergone shoulder and neck surgery and that she was still in a lot
   of pain from the injury. At one point, the recordings show Officer Guillory
   informing the 911 caller that he had “done field sobriety on her” and “if she’s
   impaired, it’s not alcohol.” The caller (and his companion) then stated that
   “she was everywhere,” “it was . . . scary,” and inquired if the driver was
   even “alert” because “it was like she was falling asleep.”
          Officer Huff then arrived at the scene. The parties dispute whether
   Huff performed drug recognition tests, but the audio recordings show that
   Officer Huff discussed results with Officer Guillory and stated that she had a
   lack of convergence and a “fast clock.” The conversation evinces that the
   officers concluded Scott was likely impaired, although not from alcohol.
          The officers proceeded to arrest Scott. Officer Guillory moved
   Scott’s arms behind her back, at which point Scott began to pull away from
   the officers. Officer Guillory ordered Scott to “stop turning” four times.
   Scott exclaimed “stop moving my arm like that . . . I had surgery and it’s
   f_____ up.” Scott then begged the officers “please don’t touch my arm.”
   After the officers continued to handcuff her, Scott repeatedly shouted, “oh
   my god,” sounding distressed and in pain. The video shows Officer Guillory
   and Officer Huff twisting Scott’s right arm behind her back, lifting the
   twisted arm, and bending Scott over on her vehicle in order to place
   handcuffs on her.
          The officer report states that Scott was arrested for improper lane
   usage in violation of La. R.S. § 32:79 and for driving while intoxicated with

                                          3
Case: 20-30507          Document: 00516760613              Page: 4      Date Filed: 05/23/2023

                                          No. 20-30507

   child endangerment in violation of La. R.S. § 14:98(B). 2 After the arrest,
   Scott admitted to taking both Xanax and Hydrocodone earlier that day.
           Scott sued the Causeway Police Department, Chief Nick Congemi of
   the Causeway Police Department, the Greater New Orleans Expressway
   Commission, and Officer Scott Huff (collectively, “Causeway Defen-
   dants”), as well as the City of Mandeville, the Mandeville Police
   Department, Mayor Donald J. Villere of Mandeville, Chief Gerald Sticker of
   the Mandeville Police Department, and Officer Terry Guillory (collectively,
   “Mandeville Defendants”), alleging, inter alia, claims of false arrest and
   excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment, as well as state law
   claims for negligence, assault, battery, excessive force, false arrest, and
   intentional infliction of emotional distress.
           Both groups of defendants moved for summary judgment. The
   district court first granted summary judgment in favor of the Causeway
   Defendants.        Almost a year later, the district court granted summary
   judgment in favor of the Mandeville Defendants. The district court also
   entered a final judgment dismissing all of Scott’s claims with prejudice. Scott
   timely appealed both summary judgments.
                                                II
           We first address Scott’s § 1983 claims of false arrest and excessive
   force. “This court reviews a district court’s grant of summary judgment de
   novo, applying the same legal standards as the district court.” 3 Summary

           _____________________
           2
             See La. Stat. Ann. § 32:79 (“A vehicle shall be driven as nearly as practicable
   entirely within a single lane and shall not be moved from such lane until the driver has first
   ascertained that such movement can be made with safety.”); La. Stat. Ann. § 14:98(B).
           3
               Condrey v. SunTrust Bank of Ga., 429 F.3d 556, 562 (5th Cir. 2005) (citation
   omitted).

                                                 4
Case: 20-30507         Document: 00516760613             Page: 5      Date Filed: 05/23/2023

                                         No. 20-30507

   judgment is proper when “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact
   and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” 4 A dispute over
   a fact is “material” if it “might affect the outcome of the suit under the
   governing law.” 5 “In reviewing an appeal from summary judgment, we
   ‘view the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and draw
   all reasonable inferences in its favor.’” 6 “However, when there is video
   evidence available in the record, the court is not bound to adopt the
   non[-]moving party’s version of the facts if it is contradicted by the record,
   but rather should ‘view[ ] the facts in the light depicted by the videotape.’” 7
           Both Officer Guillory and Officer Huff raised a qualified immunity
   defense to Scott’s § 1983 claims. “‘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.” 8 “The qualified
   immunity inquiry includes two parts. In the first we ask whether the officer’s
   alleged conduct has violated a federal right; in the second we ask whether the
   right in question was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the alleged violation,
   such that the officer was on notice of the unlawfulness of his or her

           _____________________
           4
               FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a).
           5
             Hyatt v. Thomas, 843 F.3d 172, 177 (5th Cir. 2016) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty
   Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986)).
           6
            Griggs v. Brewer, 841 F.3d 308, 312 (5th Cir. 2016) (quoting Deville v. Marcantel,
   567 F.3d 156, 163-64 (5th Cir. 2009) (per curiam)).
           7
             Harris v. Serpas, 745 F.3d 767, 771 (5th Cir. 2014) (quoting Scott v. Harris, 550
   U.S. 372, 381 (2007) (alteration in original)).
           8
             Cass v. City of Abilene, 814 F.3d 721, 728 (5th Cir. 2016) (per curiam) (quoting
   Trent v. Wade, 776 F.3d 368, 376 (5th Cir. 2015)).

                                               5
Case: 20-30507           Document: 00516760613               Page: 6       Date Filed: 05/23/2023

                                             No. 20-30507

   conduct.” 9 “The two steps of the qualified immunity inquiry may be
   performed in any order.” 10
                                                   A
           Scott first appeals the summary judgment against her § 1983 false
   arrest claim. A false arrest occurs, and an individual’s Fourth Amendment
   rights are violated, when an officer conducts an arrest without probable
   cause. 11 To prevail on her § 1983 false arrest claim, Scott must show that the
   officers did not have probable cause to arrest her. 12
           “Probable cause exists ‘when the totality of the facts and circum-
   stances within a police officer’s knowledge at the moment of arrest are
   sufficient for a reasonable person to conclude that the suspect had committed
   or was committing an offense.’” 13 The standard for analyzing probable cause
   is whether, under the totality of the circumstances, there is a “fair
   probability” that a crime occurred. 14 “[T]he requisite ‘fair probability’ is
   something more than a bare suspicion, but need not reach the fifty percent
   mark.” 15 Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Scott, we conclude
           _____________________
           9
            Cole v. Carson, 935 F.3d 444, 451 (5th Cir. 2019) (en banc) (citing Tolan v. Cotton,
   572 U.S. 650, 655-56 (2014) (per curiam)).
           10
             Tucker v. City of Shreveport, 998 F.3d 165, 172 (5th Cir. 2021) (citing Pearson v.
   Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 236 (2009)).
           11
             Mangieri v. Clifton, 29 F.3d 1012, 1016 (5th Cir. 1994) (“The right to be free from
   arrest without probable cause is a clearly established constitutional right.”); see also
   Davidson v. City of Stafford, 848 F.3d 384, 393-94 (5th Cir. 2017).
           12
             Haggerty v. Tex. S. Univ., 391 F.3d 653, 655 (5th Cir. 2004) (citing Brown v.
   Lyford, 243 F.3d 185, 189 (5th Cir. 2001)).
           13
                Id. at 655-56 (quoting Glenn v. City of Tyler, 242 F.3d 307, 313 (5th Cir. 2001)).
           14
              United States v. Garcia, 179 F.3d 265, 269 (5th Cir. 1999) (quoting United States
   v. Antone, 753 F.2d 1301, 1304 (5th Cir. 1985)).
           15
                Id.

                                                   6
Case: 20-30507         Document: 00516760613               Page: 7      Date Filed: 05/23/2023

                                          No. 20-30507

   that a reasonable person could have concluded there was a fair probability
   that Scott had been driving while intoxicated, and thus, no false arrest
   occurred.
           On appeal, Scott contends that the district court erred in granting
   summary judgment and points to a variety of allegedly conflicting evidence
   regarding, inter alia, what drug recognition tests she passed, whether the
   officers’ testimony was credible, and whether her speech was slurred. But
   those facts are not material, because even viewing each of them in the light
   most favorable to Scott, we still conclude that the officers had probable cause
   to arrest Scott for driving while intoxicated. 16
           That is because Scott does not contest the following facts, which are
   confirmed by the video and audio evidence: (1) A witness reported to the
   police that Scott was driving in a dangerous manner; 17 (2) there is video
   footage of Scott’s car swerving out of the lane and recorded audio of the
   officers noting the swerve; and (3) Officer Guillory and Officer Huff could
   not conclusively determine that she had not taken drugs. Those facts alone
   are sufficient to give rise to probable cause that Scott was driving while
   intoxicated.
           Consequently, we affirm the summary judgment on Scott’s § 1983
   false arrest claim. Because we find there to have been probable cause to arrest

           _____________________
           16
              See Hyatt v. Thomas, 843 F.3d 172, 177 (5th Cir. 2016) (stating that a dispute over
   a fact is “material” if it “might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law”
   (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986)).
           17
             Specifically, the caller stated that there was a “really intoxicated driver” who
   was “all over the road”; that the driver “almost took out two cars”; and that the driver
   “almost hit me and I think we saved her life and a couple other people’s lives tonight.”

                                                 7
Case: 20-30507           Document: 00516760613                Page: 8       Date Filed: 05/23/2023

                                             No. 20-30507

   Scott, there is no need to reach the second step of the qualified immunity
   analysis. 18
                                                   B
           Scott next alleges that Officer Huff and Officer Guillory used
   excessive force in violation of her Fourth Amendment rights when they
   arrested her. To prevail on her excessive force claim, Scott must show
   “(1) injury, (2) which resulted directly and only from a use of force that was
   clearly excessive, and (3) the excessiveness of which was clearly
   unreasonable.” 19 “Excessive force claims are necessarily fact-intensive;
   whether the force used is ‘excessive’ or ‘unreasonable’ depends on ‘the facts
   and circumstances of each particular case.’” 20
           We conclude that the officers’ use of force was not clearly
   unreasonable. “The ‘reasonableness’ of a particular use of force must be
   judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than
   with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.” 21 Under Graham v. Conner, relevant
   factors include “the severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect poses
   an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and whether [s]he
   is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight.” 22

           _____________________
           18
                Tucker v. City of Shreveport, 998 F.3d 165, 172 (5th Cir. 2021).
           19
             Tarver v. City of Edna, 410 F.3d 745, 751 (5th Cir. 2005) (citing Harper v. Harris
   Cnty., 21 F.3d 597, 600 (5th Cir. 1994) (per curiam)).
           20
             Deville v. Marcantel, 567 F.3d 156, 167 (5th Cir. 2009) (per curiam) (quoting
   Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 396 (1989)).
           21
                Graham, 490 U.S. at 396.
           22
                Id. (citing Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1, 8-9 (1985)).

                                                    8
Case: 20-30507             Document: 00516760613             Page: 9     Date Filed: 05/23/2023

                                             No. 20-30507

            Here, Scott was being arrested for driving under the influence, which
   is a serious crime under Graham. 23 Although there is no evidence that Scott
   posed an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, the officers’
   use of force was relatively minimal. Handcuffing is a generally accepted
   technique to conduct an arrest. 24 Additionally, “minor, incidental injuries
   that occur in connection with the use of handcuffs to effectuate an arrest do
   not give rise to a constitutional claim for excessive force.” 25
            Scott does not appear to dispute that, but for her preexisting
   condition, the handcuffing procedure used against her was a reasonable use
   of force. Instead, citing Johnson v. Hollins, Scott contends that a standard
   police         technique        becomes        excessive        if   “the     surrounding
   circumstances . . . would put a reasonable officer on notice that [an arrestee]
   was particularly susceptible to injury from the standard maneuver.” 26
            But this court’s decision in Windham v. Harris County 27 shows that
   this is not such a case. In Windham, the plaintiff alleged that a field sobriety
   test injured him by aggravating a preexisting condition in his neck. 28 The
   plaintiff expressed doubts to the officer as to his ability to complete the field
   sobriety tests and told the officer that it “hurt[] to lift [his] head up this high”

            _____________________
            23
                 Griggs v. Brewer, 841 F.3d 308, 316 (5th Cir. 2016).
            24
              See Fisher v. City of Las Cruces, 584 F.3d 888, 896 (10th Cir. 2009) (“[I]n nearly
   every situation where an arrest is authorized . . . handcuffing is appropriate.” (citation
   omitted)).
            25
             Freeman v. Gore, 483 F.3d 404, 417 (5th Cir. 2007) (citations omitted); see also
   Templeton v. Jarmillo, 28 F.4th 618, 622-23 (5th Cir. 2022).
            26
             716 F. App’x 248, 253 (5th Cir. 2017) (per curiam) (unpublished); see also Fisher,
   584 F.3d at 895-96.
            27
                 875 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2017).
            28
                 Id. at 232.

                                                    9
Case: 20-30507          Document: 00516760613       Page: 10   Date Filed: 05/23/2023

                                     No. 20-30507

   and that he did not have any head injuries, but that his “neck hurt[].” 29 The
   court noted, “there is no doubt that, but for [the plaintiff’s] neck condition,
   [the officer’s] administration of the gaze nystagmus test would have been a
   perfectly reasonable exercise of police authority.” 30 This court concluded
   that “no reasonable jury could find that the officers should have been on
   notice that his neck condition was such that he would suffer injury if [the
   officer] administered the test.” 31
          Officer Guillory was performing a routine handcuffing technique
   when Scott began to pull away from his grasp as he repeatedly instructed her
   to stop turning away from him. The officers then increased their use of force
   by lifting Scott’s twisted right arm and bending her over the police car. This
   limited use of force was a response to Scott’s perceived resistance and was
   not clearly unreasonable under the circumstances.
          Like the officers in Windham, Officer Huff and Officer Guillory were
   not on notice that Scott would suffer injury from their handcuffing
   procedure. Although Scott informed other officers on the scene that she had
   recently undergone surgery, it is far from obvious that the officers would be
   on notice that Scott would be injured if they handcuffed her because of that
   surgery. Scott had kept her hands above her head for a significant amount of
   time prior to the arrest and had not shown any visible signs of injury before
   the arrest. The officers’ first notice that Scott might become injured by the
   standard handcuffing procedure came when they began to handcuff Scott, as
   she was turning away from Officer Guillory’s attempt to restrain her. The
   officer’s limited use of force (in such a short time frame) to restrain Scott and

          _____________________
          29
               Id. at 234.
          30
               Id. at 242-43.
          31
               Id. at 243.

                                          10
Case: 20-30507          Document: 00516760613               Page: 11       Date Filed: 05/23/2023

                                            No. 20-30507

   place her in handcuffs as a response to Scott’s perceived resistance does not
   amount to excessive force. 32
           Because we conclude that Scott’s Fourth Amendment rights were not
   violated, we need not reach the second step of the qualified immunity
   analysis. We therefore affirm the summary judgment on the § 1983 excessive
   force claim.
                                                  III
           Finally, Scott argues that the district court erred by granting summary
   judgment to the defendants on her Louisiana state law claims for
   (1) excessive force (2) false arrest; (3) negligence; (4) and vicarious liability.
                                                  A
           First, an officer is liable for injuries that result from the use of
   “unreasonable or excessive force.” 33 “The reasonableness test . . . is based
   upon the text of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution,
   as well as La. Code Cr. P. art. 220.” 34 “Whether the force used is reasonable
   depends upon the totality of the facts and circumstances in each case. A court
   must evaluate the officers’ actions against those of ordinary, prudent, and

           _____________________
           32
             See also Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 396-97 (1989) (“The calculus of
   reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to
   make split-second judgments—in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly
   evolving—about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation.”).
           33
                Kyle v. City of New Orleans, 353 So. 2d 969, 972 (La. 1977).
           34
             Mathieu v. Imperial Toy Corp., 646 So. 2d 318, 323 (La. 1994) (emphasis removed)
   (citing La. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 220 (“A person shall submit peaceably to a
   lawful arrest. The person making a lawful arrest may use reasonable force to effect the
   arrest and detention, and also to overcome any resistance or threatened resistance of the
   person being arrested or detained.”)).

                                                  11
Case: 20-30507           Document: 00516760613                 Page: 12   Date Filed: 05/23/2023

                                             No. 20-30507

   reasonable men placed in the same position as the officers and with the same
   knowledge as the officers.” 35
           To determine whether an officer used excessive force, Louisiana
   courts consider the following factors: “(1) the known character of the
   arrestee; (2) the risks and dangers faced by the officers; (3) the nature of the
   offense involved; (4) the chance of the arrestee’s escape if the particular
   means are not employed; (5) the existence of alternative methods of arrest;
   (6) the physical size, strength, and weaponry of the officers as compared to
   the arrestee; and (7) the exigency of the moment.” 36 As we noted in Deville
   v. Marcantel, these factors are “sufficiently similar to the Graham factors that
   our decision on this claim mirrors our decision” on Scott’s § 1983 excessive
   force claim. 37 Accordingly, we affirm the summary judgment on Scott’s
   state-law excessive force claim.
                                                   B
           Under Louisiana law, “[f]alse arrest and imprisonment occur when
   one arrests and restrains another against his will without a warrant or other
   statutory authority.” 38 The police may conduct a warrantless arrest if there
   is “reasonable cause to believe that the person to be arrested has committed
   an offense.” 39 “Reasonable cause exists when the facts and circumstances
   within the arresting officer’s knowledge, and of which he has reasonable
   trustworthy information, are sufficient to justify an average man of caution in
           _____________________
           35
                Kyle, 353 So. 2d at 973 (citations omitted).
           36
              Mathieu, 646 So. 2d at 322-23 (citing Kyle, 353 So. 2d at 973) (analyzing a
   negligence claim); Deville v. Marcantel, 567 F.3d 156, 172-73 (5th Cir. 2009) (per curiam)
   (citing Kyle, 353 So. 2d at 973) (analyzing an excessive force claim).
           37
                Deville, 567 F.3d at 173.
           38
                Kyle, 353 So. 2d at 971.
           39
                La. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 213(A)(3).

                                                   12
Case: 20-30507            Document: 00516760613                  Page: 13   Date Filed: 05/23/2023

                                               No. 20-30507

   the belief that a [crime] has been committed.” 40 “This requires that an
   officer have probable cause for the arrest.” 41 Again, our analysis mirrors that
   of the federal claim—the officers had probable cause to arrest Scott for
   driving while intoxicated, and accordingly, there was no false arrest. We
   affirm the summary judgment on Scott’s state law false arrest claim.
                                                     C
             Scott also alleges negligence. “Under Louisiana law, a police officer
   making an arrest owes a duty to act reasonably under the totality of the
   circumstances.” 42 Her live complaint broadly states that “the actions of
   defendant officers constitute negligence in the treatment of the plaintiff
   including assault, battery, excessive force and/or unlawful arrest, and
   intentional infliction of emotional distress, among other acts of negligence.”
   The district court granted summary judgment for defendants, finding “no
   evidence to create an issue of fact on whether the officers acted reasonably
   under the circumstances.”
             Scott contends that this was improper. But upon a review of the
   record, we agree with the district court that there is simply no basis for a

             _____________________
             40
                  Kyle, 353 So. 2d at 971 (citations omitted).
             41
                  Deville, 567 F.3d at 172 (citing State v. Hathaway, 411 So.2d 1074, 1078-79 (La.
   1982)).
             42
             Arnold v. Williams, 979 F.3d 262, 271 (5th Cir. 2020) (citing Mathieu v. Imperial
   Toy Corp., 646 So. 2d 318, 322 (La. 1994)).

                                                     13
Case: 20-30507        Document: 00516760613               Page: 14      Date Filed: 05/23/2023

                                           No. 20-30507

   negligence claim on any of the grounds alleged. 43 We therefore affirm the
   summary judgment.
                                               D
           Finally, Scott claims that the municipal defendants are vicariously
   liable for the tortious conduct of the officers. Because Scott’s underlying
   state law claims were properly dismissed, there is no basis for her vicarious
   liability claim against the municipal defendants. We affirm the summary
   judgment on this issue.
                                       *        *         *
           For these reasons, we AFFIRM the summary judgment on Scott’s
   § 1983 and state-law claims.

           _____________________
           43
              To the extent the negligence claim is predicated on the claims of excessive force
   and false arrest, our analysis mirrors that for those claims.

                                               14