Court Opinion

ID: 9899161
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-16 01:00:38.835297+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:00.592765
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-51032        Document: 00516969508             Page: 1      Date Filed: 11/15/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________
                                                                               United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit
                                      No. 22-51032
                                    Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                    ____________                              November 15, 2023
                                                                                 Lyle W. Cayce
   Andrew Trevino,                                                                    Clerk

                                                                    Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                            versus

   Timothy Price, Homicide Detective, Austin Police Department,

                                               Defendant—Appellee.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Western District of Texas
                               USDC No. 1:22-CV-152
                     ______________________________

   Before King, Haynes, and Graves, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, Andrew Trevino, Texas
   prisoner #2119873, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C.
   § 1983 complaint following the grant of summary judgment in favor of the
   sole named defendant, Detective Timothy Price. Trevino sought damages

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-51032      Document: 00516969508           Page: 2    Date Filed: 11/15/2023

                                     No. 22-51032

   for injuries he alleged resulted from Detective Price’s use of excessive force
   in handcuffing him on November 9, 2021.
          In his brief on appeal, Trevino does not challenge the district court’s
   determination that the summary judgment evidence did not show that
   Detective Price handcuffed him, much less used excessive force against him
   while doing so, as he alleged in his complaint. Even given the benefit of liberal
   construction, by failing to address the summary judgment evidence or any
   aspect of the district court’s summary judgment determination, Trevino
   appears to have abandoned any challenge to the sole issue on appeal. See
   Grant v. Cuellar, 59 F.3d 523, 524 (5th Cir. 1995; Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d
   222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993); see also Brinkmann v. Dallas Cty. Deputy Sheriff
   Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987) (stating that this court “will not raise
   and discuss legal issues” that an appellant “has failed to assert”).
   Nevertheless, assuming he has not abandoned a challenge to the summary-
   judgment ruling, he has not shown a genuine dispute as to any material fact.
          Summary judgment is appropriate if the record discloses “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 review “the
   grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the same standards as the
   district court.” Dillon v. Rogers, 596 F.3d 260, 266 (5th Cir. 2010) (internal
   quotation marks and citation omitted). When, as in this case, a § 1983
   defendant pleads qualified immunity in a summary judgment motion, the
   plaintiff has the burden to show that the defense is unavailable. Trent v.
   Wade, 776 F.3d 368, 376 (5th Cir. 2015). To satisfy this burden, the plaintiff
   must show that there are material factual disputes regarding whether the
   defendant violated a constitutional right and whether the right was clearly
   established at the time of the alleged misconduct, such that every reasonable
   official would understand that the misconduct violated the right. See Baldwin
   v. Dorsey, 964 F.3d 320, 325-26 (5th Cir. 2020).

                                          2
Case: 22-51032      Document: 00516969508          Page: 3    Date Filed: 11/15/2023

                                    No. 22-51032

          The competent summary judgment evidence before the district court,
   including video evidence of Trevino’s handcuffing and re-cuffing with two
   pairs of handcuffs for his comfort, “blatantly contradict[s]” and “utterly
   discredit[s]” Trevino’s § 1983 allegation that Detective Price used excessive
   force in handcuffing him. Hanks v. Rogers, 853 F.3d 738, 744 (5th Cir. 2017)
   (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Indeed, the video evidence,
   which is consistent with the affidavits submitted, unambiguously shows that
   it was a uniformed patrol officer—and not Detective Price—who handcuffed
   Trevino. None of the evidence shows the patrol officer using force, much
   less excessive force, or engaging in any malicious conduct when handcuffing,
   or re-cuffing, Trevino. See, e.g. Glenn v. City of Tyler, 242 F.3d 307, 314 (5th
   Cir. 2001) (concluding that officer’s handcuffing of plaintiff, which caused
   the plaintiff’s hand to become swollen, did not amount to excessive force
   because the plaintiff did not allege that the officer acted maliciously, and
   “handcuffing too tightly, without more, does not amount to excessive
   force”).   To the contrary, the video evidence clearly shows that the
   interaction between Trevino and the officer was calm and cordial and that
   Trevino was handled courteously and without force by Detective Price.
          Because the competent summary judgment evidence does not show a
   genuine dispute as to any material fact regarding whether Detective Price
   handcuffed Trevino or violated Trevino’s constitutional right by using
   excessive force, summary judgment was proper. Accordingly, the district
   court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. Trevino’s motion for monetary damages
   is DENIED.

                                          3