Court Opinion

ID: 9378619
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-11 01:00:29.800803+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:26.191589
License: Public Domain

Case: 21-30752   Document: 00516672831      Page: 1    Date Filed: 03/10/2023

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

                                                                        FILED
                                                                  March 10, 2023
                             No. 21-30752
                                                                   Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                        Clerk
   Cameron Kemp,

                                                      Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                versus

   Donald Belanger, Jr,

                                                      Defendant—Appellee,

                        consolidated with

                             No. 21-30781

   Cameron Kemp,

                                                      Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                versus

   Carlos Glass-Bradley; Daniel Albrecht; Ryan Holley;
   Donald Belanger,

                                                  Defendants—Appellees.
Case: 21-30752         Document: 00516672831             Page: 2      Date Filed: 03/10/2023

                                No. 21-30752 (cons. w/ 21-30781)

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Western District of Louisiana
                                USDC No. 5:19-cv-799

   Before Clement, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          In this set of consolidated, pro se appeals, Cameron Kemp asks us to
   revive his suit against officers he claims violated his rights. We AFFIRM in
   part, REVERSE in part, and REMAND for further proceedings.
                                                I
          Kemp appeals twice from the same case—a § 1983 action against
   Shreveport, Louisiana police officers Carlos Glass-Bradley, Daniel Albrecht,
   Ryan Holley, and Donald Belanger, Jr. Much of his ire is trained on two
   separate incidents.
          First, Kemp claims that in 2018, the four officer defendants showed
   up at his house to arrest him on a “fake fugitive warrant” stemming from a
   domestic abuse complaint two years prior. Kemp explains that they then lied
   about smelling marijuana inside and began raiding the home. Finding nothing
   illicit of Kemp’s, he says, the officers instead “planted 1 gram of marijuana”
   in the house and a full bag of marijuana in his neighbor’s yard. He was
   arrested for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. All of this, he
   says, was in retaliation for filing a complaint with the ACLU against the same
   four officers back in 2012.
          The officers (and the evidence) tell a fuller tale. Arrest reports explain
   that at the time, the department was conducting a warrant round-up

          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

                                               2
Case: 21-30752      Document: 00516672831          Page: 3    Date Filed: 03/10/2023

                           No. 21-30752 (cons. w/ 21-30781)

   operation. Kemp had an outstanding 2016 warrant for a prior charge of
   domestic abuse battery. When the officers arrived at Kemp’s place, he closed
   the door in their faces and fled to the house’s rear. Agents outside circled the
   house, where they heard a window open but saw no one exit. Instead, just
   across from the opened window, they found laying in the neighbor’s yard a
   retail bag containing about a pound of marijuana. When Kemp eventually met
   the officers back at the door, they “observed a strong order of marijuana
   coming from inside” and saw a “jar of marijuana” sitting on Kemp’s living
   room floor. The officers seized both the jar and the bag, and then arrested
   Kemp.
           As regards this incident, the district court eventually adopted the
   magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and granted summary
   judgment to the officers. The court found: that Kemp could not dispute
   evidence that his arrest warrant was properly issued; that seizure of the jar in
   the living room was permitted under the search-incident-to-arrest and plain-
   view exceptions to the warrant requirement; that Kemp lacked standing to
   contest any search or seizure of items in his neighbor’s yard; and finally, that
   Kemp could not show that, save for his 2012 ACLU complaint, he would not
   have been arrested.
           Kemp’s tale continues with a second run-in with Belanger the next
   year. In early 2019, Kemp says, more than twenty officers amassed outside
   his home. An animal control officer then “lured [Kemp] to the street,”
   where, he insists, he was ambushed by the crowd. Out of fear for his life,
   Kemp explains, he surrendered peacefully without resistance, posing no
   threat to the officers. But all the same, Kemp says, Belanger cuffed him and
   then swept his legs, sending him crashing to the ground.
           The officers remember it differently. In their telling, they had a
   narcotics search warrant for Kemp’s house, obtained after conducting two

                                          3
Case: 21-30752     Document: 00516672831           Page: 4    Date Filed: 03/10/2023

                           No. 21-30752 (cons. w/ 21-30781)

   controlled drug buys there. Fearful of Kemp’s pit bulls, they employed an
   animal control officer to lure Kemp outside under the guise of an animal
   complaint. Once outside, Kemp became “irate” and “belligerent,”
   repeatedly demanding to see a warrant. He “pulled away” from Belanger and
   “refused to comply” with instructions to sit. To prevent escape and ensure
   safety, Belanger swept Kemp to the ground “in the manner taught to [him]
   at the Shreveport Police Department.”
         In Kemp’s telling, this event left him with myriad injuries, including
   bruised ribs and elbows, debilitating arm injuries, exacerbated breathing
   troubles, and back problems. Belanger instead insists that after he took Kemp
   to the hospital following the incident, Kemp was diagnosed only with rib pain
   and was prescribed ibuprofen. Scans showed no other injury.
         The district court eventually granted Belanger summary judgment as
   to this 2019 incident too. On recommendation of the magistrate judge, the
   district court found that though Kemp did establish a genuine issue of
   material fact as whether Belanger “used unreasonable force by leg sweeping
   a handcuffed suspect” who may or may not have been resisting, his claim still
   fails because he could show only “minimal injuries.”
         Kemp now appeals both grants of summary judgment.
                                         II
         This case involves two different standards. First, we review the
   district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the same
   standard used by the district court. Nickell v. Beau View of Biloxi, L.L.C.,
   636 F.3d 752, 754 (5th Cir. 2011). Summary 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.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). We view the evidence
   and draw all inferences in a light most favorable to the nonmovant; however,
   “[u]nsubstantiated assertions, improbable inferences, and unsupported

                                          4
Case: 21-30752      Document: 00516672831          Page: 5    Date Filed: 03/10/2023

                           No. 21-30752 (cons. w/ 21-30781)

   speculation are not sufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment.”
   Brown v. City of Hous., 337 F.3d 539, 541 (5th Cir. 2003). The pleadings and
   other filings of pro se litigants are construed liberally. Coleman v. United
   States, 912 F.3d 824, 828 (5th Cir. 2019).
          Then, we review denials of a motion to amend, motion for sanctions,
   and motion for relief from judgment for abuse of discretion. Marucci Sports,
   L.L.C. v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 751 F.3d 368, 378 (5th Cir. 2014)
   (motion to amend); Copeland v. Wasserstein, Perella & Co., 278 F.3d 472, 477
   (5th Cir. 2002) (motion for sanctions); Roberts v. Wal-Mart La., L.L.C., 54
   F.4th 852, 854 (5th Cir. 2022) (per curiam) (motion for relief from
   judgment).
                                         A
          We start with the straightforward. Upon review of the parties’ briefs
   and the record, we find no reversible error in the district court’s
   determination that Kemp failed to provide evidence demonstrating a genuine
   dispute of material fact as to his allegations against Officers Glass-Bradley,
   Albrecht, Holley, or Belanger regarding his 2018 arrest. We therefore
   AFFIRM that order.
                                          B
          But the district court’s order granting Belanger summary judgment
   regarding Kemp’s 2019 arrest is a different story. Kemp alleges that Belanger
   violated his constitutional right to be free from excessive force. To show such
   a violation, Kemp must demonstrate “(1) an injury (2) which resulted from
   the use of force that was clearly excessive to the need and (3) the
   excessiveness of which was objectively unreasonable.” Rockwell v. Brown, 664
   F.3d 985, 991 (5th Cir. 2011) (quotations and citation omitted). Then, if he
   succeeds, Kemp must demonstrate that the law prohibiting Belanger’s
   behavior was clearly established at the time of his conduct. Ramirez v.

                                          5
Case: 21-30752        Document: 00516672831             Page: 6      Date Filed: 03/10/2023

                               No. 21-30752 (cons. w/ 21-30781)

   Martinez, 716 F.3d 369, 377 (5th Cir. 2013). We judge the reasonableness of
   the force employed from the perspective of a reasonable officer at the scene,
   rather than with the “the 20/20 vision of hindsight.” Id. (quotations and
   citation omitted).
           In Kemp’s sworn telling, he surrendered peacefully, and then was
   swept to the ground while handcuffed and nonresisting. Belanger instead
   insists that Kemp was irate, belligerent, and evasive, and that Belanger took
   him to the ground only after he didn’t comply with several verbal commands.
   In these different tales, the district court found a dispute of material fact over
   whether Kemp was resisting and thus over whether Belanger’s use of force—
   sweeping to the ground a handcuffed, potentially nonresisting suspect—was
   reasonable.
           Belanger did not challenge this finding on appeal.1 Instead, Belanger
   hangs his cap on the district court’s second conclusion: that Kemp failed to
   show his injuries were more than de minimis.
           But that conclusion was error. As we’ve explained, though “a de
   minimis injury is not cognizable, the extent of injury necessary to satisfy the
   injury requirement is directly related to the amount of force that is
   constitutionally permissible under the circumstances.” Byrd v. Cornelius, 52
   F.4th 265, 274 (5th Cir. 2022) (quotations and citation omitted). “Any force
   found to be objectively unreasonable necessarily exceeds the de minimis
   threshold, and, conversely, objectively reasonable force will result in de

           1
            What Belanger does say, however, is that the magistrate judge correctly
   determined that his force was not unreasonably excessive under the circumstances. This
   argument relies entirely on Belanger’s evidence in support of his motion, and fails to
   grapple with Kemp’s sworn account or with the district court’s actual conclusion that
   Kemp established a genuine dispute of material fact as to the reasonableness of Belanger’s
   force.

                                               6
Case: 21-30752        Document: 00516672831              Page: 7       Date Filed: 03/10/2023

                               No. 21-30752 (cons. w/ 21-30781)

   minimis injuries only.” Id. (quotations and citation omitted). Thus, “as long
   as a plaintiff has suffered some injury, even relatively insignificant injuries . . .
   will prove cognizable when resulting from an officer’s unreasonably
   excessive force.” Id. (emphasis added) (quoting Alexander v. City of Round
   Rock, 854 F.3d 298, 309 (5th Cir. 2017) (quotations omitted)).
           Here, even though Kemp did not prove the extensive injuries he
   claimed, he still proves some injury. He was diagnosed with rib pain and
   “bony tenderness,” for which the doctor prescribed ibuprofen. Though this
   is unquestionably no great injury, it is nonetheless actionable if resulting from
   unreasonable force. Should Belanger’s force be excessive given the
   circumstances—a question we do not answer now—then Kemp’s injuries,
   however mild, can sustain his claim. To hold otherwise was error.2
           We therefore AFFIRM the grant of summary judgment to Glass-
   Bradley, Albrecht, Holley, and Belanger regarding Kemp’s 2018 arrest. But
   we REVERSE the grant of summary judgment to Belanger with respect to
   Kemp’s 2019 arrest, and REMAND this matter for further proceedings
   consistent with this opinion.

           2
              The district court did not address whether Belanger’s conduct, should it be found
   unreasonable, violated clearly established law. But it (and Kemp) pointed to Ramirez v.
   Martinez, where we found it clearly established that an officer cannot “forcefully slam[] an
   arrestee’s face . . . when the arrestee was handcuffed and subdued.” 716 F.3d at 379
   (discussing Bush v. Strain, 513 F.3d 492, 501 (5th Cir. 2008)). We don’t think slamming an
   arrestee’s entire body as opposed to his face makes the unreasonableness of the force any
   less clearly established.

                                                7
Case: 21-30752        Document: 00516672831          Page: 8    Date Filed: 03/10/2023

                             No. 21-30752 (cons. w/ 21-30781)

   Andrew S. Oldham, Circuit Judge, dissenting:
             The plaintiff in this qualified-immunity case does not specify any
   Supreme Court holding that clearly established the law and thus put the
   constitutionality of Officer Belanger’s conduct “beyond debate.” Mullenix v.
   Luna, 577 U.S. 7, 12 (2015) (per curiam) (quotation omitted). Therefore, I’d
   affirm.

                                            8