Court Opinion

ID: 9555928
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-15 18:01:20.155753+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:36:52.415097
License: Public Domain

Case: 19-40904     Document: 00516858401         Page: 1    Date Filed: 08/15/2023

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

                                                                            FILED
                                                                      August 15, 2023
                                  No. 19-40904                         Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                            Clerk

   Ricardo Sauceda,

                                                           Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                      versus

   City of San Benito, Texas; Hector Lopez, Individually and in
   his official capacity as a Peace Officer for the City of San Benito,
   Texas Police Department,

                                                        Defendants—Appellees.

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Southern District of Texas
                            USDC No. 1:17-CV-135

   Before Richman, Chief Judge, and Dennis and Haynes, Circuit
   Judges.
   James L. Dennis, Circuit Judge:
         On June 20, 2015, San Benito police officer Hector Lopez approached
   Ricardo Sauceda while Sauceda was standing in the front yard of his property.
   Lopez was responding to a call from Marco Cortez, a relative of Sauceda’s
   neighbors, who alleged that Sauceda had made rude comments and gestures
   toward him from across the street. Lopez spoke to Sauceda and demanded
   that he produce identification. Sauceda—speaking to Lopez from behind the
Case: 19-40904      Document: 00516858401           Page: 2    Date Filed: 08/15/2023

                                     No. 19-40904

   chain-link fence that enclosed his property—declined and turned to go inside
   his house. Undeterred, Lopez pushed open the gate into Sauceda’s yard.
   Sauceda told Lopez he needed a warrant and pushed back. Within seconds,
   Lopez broke through, telling Sauceda, “I am coming after you, brother,”
   and, “You’re going to come with me, brother.” Lopez grabbed Sauceda and
   the parties physically struggled, with the fifty-year-old, disabled Sauceda
   brought to the ground. At one point, Lopez took out his baton. Sauceda
   claims he hit him with it; video evidence is inconclusive. Sauceda was taken
   into custody and, after receiving medical attention for his injuries, was
   charged with several offenses.        All were dismissed.       He now seeks
   recompense from Defendants Lopez and the City of San Benito for false
   arrest and excessive force. 1
          The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants.
   Contrary to the district court, we conclude that Sauceda has raised genuine
   issues of material fact as to his claim for false arrest against Lopez. We
   therefore REVERSE and REMAND with respect to the false arrest claim.
   We otherwise AFFIRM the district court.
                      I. Factual and Procedural Background
          Sauceda was fifty years old and disabled at the time of the events in
   question. Sauceda and his neighbors, the Cortez family, had a fraught
   history. Sauceda had lodged numerous complaints against the Cortez family
   to the San Benito Police Department.
          On June 20, 2015, the Cortez family was having a party across the
   street from Sauceda’s home. Marco Cortez alleged that Sauceda made lewd
   gestures and comments directed toward him. Cortez recorded three videos

          1
           Sauceda also sued under the Texas Tort Claims Act. Those claims have been
   abandoned on appeal.

                                          2
Case: 19-40904      Document: 00516858401           Page: 3    Date Filed: 08/15/2023

                                     No. 19-40904

   of Sauceda on his cellphone, but deleted one of them “because it didn’t show
   anything.” The other two videos show Sauceda standing on his property,
   though they lack audio and do not clearly show what gestures (if any) Sauceda
   was making.
          After recording Sauceda, Cortez called the police. Officer Lopez
   arrived and spoke to Cortez, who described his allegations against Sauceda
   and showed Lopez the videos he recorded. Lopez then crossed the street and
   addressed Sauceda, who was standing behind a gated fence that surrounded
   his property. Lopez testified that at that time he had not yet decided to arrest
   Sauceda for disorderly conduct.
          Lopez’s body camera recorded their interaction. Sauceda denied the
   accusations against him, stated that he previously filed police reports against
   the grandfather of the Cortez family, and suggested that the Cortezes had
   called the police against him in retaliation. Lopez then asked Sauceda for his
   driver’s license. Sauceda declined to produce it, stating that he did not wish
   to file a report and was just minding his own business. Lopez told Sauceda
   that he would be making a report and needed Sauceda’s information.
   Sauceda told him, “I’m not going to give you anything,” and began to walk
   away. Lopez testified that it was at this point that he decided to arrest
   Sauceda. However, as we shall explain later in this opinion, the mere refusal
   to identify oneself to a police officer is not a crime in Texas if the person has
   not lawfully been placed under arrest. See Tex. Penal Code § 38.02(a).
          As Sauceda walked a few steps toward his house, Lopez began to open
   Sauceda’s gate. Sauceda noticed what Lopez was doing, turned back, and
   attempted to hold the gate closed. He told Lopez, “you don’t get in my
   house without a search warrant, no, sir.” Lopez responded, “I’m going after
   you, brother,” and forced his way into Sauceda’s yard. Lopez testified that
   he “got a hold of [Sauceda’s] left hand” before Sauceda “pulled away.” His

                                           3
Case: 19-40904         Document: 00516858401       Page: 4   Date Filed: 08/15/2023

                                    No. 19-40904

   body camera footage showed Sauceda telling Lopez “don’t touch me” as he
   pulled out of Lopez’s grip. Lopez continued to pursue Sauceda further into
   the yard, telling him, “You’re going to come with me, brother,” and saying
   over his radio, “I got one resisting arrest.” Lopez did not inform Sauceda
   why he was being arrested. Lopez then grabbed Sauceda a second time. It is
   unclear if Lopez jerked Sauceda forward or if Sauceda lost his balance, but
   Sauceda immediately fell to the ground.
          Lopez attempted to handcuff Sauceda. As Sauceda lay on his back,
   Lopez stood over him and pinned him with his legs. While in this position,
   Lopez drew and extended his baton with his left hand. Sauceda testified that
   Lopez struck him with the baton. Lopez testified that he did not. Lopez’s
   body camera footage does not show precisely what Lopez did with the baton.
   During the struggle, someone placed the palm side of their right hand directly
   over the camera, obscuring part of the relevant footage. During the arrest,
   Cortez began to make his own recording on his cellphone. Cortez’s video
   shows Sauceda lying on his back and an object falling from his pocket. Several
   seconds later, Lopez extends his baton by raising it up to head level with his
   left hand and making a quick, downward swing in a counterclockwise arc. It
   is difficult to tell whether the swing made contact with Sauceda, or whether
   it was intended to make such contact. At no point in either video can the
   baton be seen or heard coming into contact with Sauceda, and Sauceda said
   nothing on the recording about being struck with the baton and does not cry
   out as if struck.
          Lopez’s body camera captured repeated outcries from both Sauceda
   and Sauceda’s wife begging for Lopez to leave him alone. They repeatedly
   told Lopez that he was hurting Sauceda because he was disabled and had a
   bad back. After he was handcuffed, Sauceda struggled to stand and asked for
   an ambulance. Lopez told him to give him his hand. Sauceda said he would
   get up himself. Lopez again told Sauceda “Give me your hand” and

                                         4
Case: 19-40904      Document: 00516858401           Page: 5     Date Filed: 08/15/2023

                                     No. 19-40904

   threatened to “spray” him if he did not. Sauceda said, “I think I hurt my
   back for real.” Lopez replied, “I don’t care, brother.” By this point, other
   officers had arrived on the scene. Sauceda continued to ask for an ambulance
   as he was moved to the police car and was told, “once we get to the station.”
   Eventually, a different officer agreed to call an ambulance.
          Sauceda was told that he was under arrest and read his rights. He was
   taken by ambulance to Harlingen Medical Center, where he was diagnosed
   with a cervical sprain, a back sprain, and a contusion. Once released from the
   hospital, he was taken to the police station for booking. He was charged with
   disorderly conduct, failure to identify, resisting arrest, and assault on a public
   servant. The Cameron County District Attorney dismissed all charges
   against Sauceda in February 2017. Lopez was not disciplined.
                                   II. Discussion
          Summary judgment is appropriate only when “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.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A genuine dispute
   of material fact exists only “if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury
   could return a verdict for the non-moving party.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,
   Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). The Court must “view the facts and draw
   reasonable inferences ‘in the light most favorable to the party opposing
   [summary judgment].’” Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 378 (2007) (quoting
   United States v. Diebold, Inc., 369 U.S. 654, 655 (1962)). At the same time,
   we do not consider a party’s description of the facts if it is so “blatantly
   contradicted” by video evidence “that no reasonable jury could believe it.”
   Id. at 380.
          Lopez contends that even if a fact issue exists about whether he
   arrested Sauceda unlawfully or used excessive force, he is entitled to qualified
   immunity. To evaluate whether a government official is entitled to qualified

                                           5
Case: 19-40904      Document: 00516858401           Page: 6   Date Filed: 08/15/2023

                                    No. 19-40904

   immunity, “[w]e must determine (1) ‘whether the facts that a plaintiff has
   alleged make out a violation of a constitutional right’ and (2) ‘whether the
   right at issue was ‘clearly established’ at the time of defendant’s alleged
   misconduct.’” Darden v. City of Fort Worth, Tex., 880 F.3d 722, 727 (5th Cir.
   2018) (ellipsis omitted) (quoting Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 232
   (2009)). “Law is ‘clearly established’ for these purposes only if ‘the
   contours of the right were sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would
   understand that what he was doing violated that right.’” Perniciaro v. Lea,
   901 F.3d 241, 255 (5th Cir. 2018) (brackets omitted) (quoting Anderson v.
   Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640 (1987)). “A right may be clearly established
   without ‘a case directly on point,’ but ‘existing precedent must have placed
   the statutory or constitutional question beyond debate.’” Darden, 880 F.3d
   at 727 (quoting Hanks v. Rogers, 853 F.3d 738, 746-47 (5th Cir. 2017)). “[A]
   defendant cannot be said to have violated a clearly established right unless
   the right’s contours were sufficiently definite that any reasonable official in
   the defendant’s shoes would have understood that he was violating it.”
   Plumhoff v. Rickard, 572 U.S. 765, 778 (2014).
          In addition to suing Lopez, Sauceda also sued the City of San Benito.
   “To establish municipal liability pursuant to § 1983, a plaintiff must
   demonstrate three elements: ‘a policymaker; an official policy; and a
   violation of constitutional rights whose “moving force” is the policy or
   custom.’” Shumpert v. City of Tupelo, 905 F.3d 310, 316 (5th Cir. 2018)
   (quoting Piotrowski v. City of Houston, 237 F.3d 567, 578 (5th Cir. 2001)). “An
   official policy may take ‘various forms,’ including ‘a widespread practice that
   is so common and well-settled as to constitute a custom that fairly represents
   municipal policy.’” Fennell v. Marion Independent School Dist., 804 F.3d 398,
   413 (5th Cir. 2015) (quoting James v. Harris Cty., 577 F.3d 612, 617 (5th Cir.
   2009)). The plaintiff must show that the policy “violated federal law[,]
   authorized or directed the deprivation of federal rights[,] or … was adopted

                                         6
Case: 19-40904      Document: 00516858401          Page: 7   Date Filed: 08/15/2023

                                    No. 19-40904

   or maintained by the municipality’s policymakers ‘with “deliberate
   indifference” as to its known or obvious consequences[.]’” Johnson v. Deep
   East Texas Regional Narcotics Trafficking Task Force, 379 F.3d 293, 309 (5th
   Cir. 2004) (quoting Bd. of Cty. Comm’rs of Bryan Cty., Okl. v. Brown, 520 U.S.
   397 (1997)). The plaintiff must also show that the policymaker had “actual
   or constructive knowledge of the official policy or custom.” Fennell, 804
   F.3d at 413 (quoting Johnson v. Moore, 958 F.2d 92, 94 (5th Cir. 1992)).
   Unlike individual officers, municipalities may not assert qualified immunity.
   See Brown v. Lyford, 243 F.3d 185, 191 n.18 (5th Cir. 2001); Babb v. Dorman,
   33 F.3d 472, 475 n.5 (5th Cir. 1994).
          A.     Sauceda’s Evidentiary Arguments
          We begin with Sauceda’s evidentiary arguments. Sauceda contends
   that the district court erred by denying his objections, on hearsay grounds, to
   (1) Cortez’s unsworn statement, (2) Lopez’s police report (including a
   summary of Cortez’s statements to Lopez, which Sauceda contends are
   hearsay-within-hearsay), and (3) the report of Defendants’ expert, Margo
   Frasier.
          On appellate review of an order granting or denying summary
   judgment, this court will reverse only if the error “affects ‘substantial
   rights.’” Ratliff v. Aransas Cty., Tex., 948 F.3d 281, 286 (5th Cir. 2020)
   (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 61). The party asserting error “bears the burden
   of proving such prejudice.” Id. In this case, the district court’s opinion and
   order granting summary judgment did not cite any of the documents
   challenged by Sauceda. Likewise, our conclusion on the merits, which we
   address in the following sections, does not depend on whether or not the
   challenged documents are deemed to be included in the summary judgment
   record. Thus, if there was any error by the district court in overruling
   Sauceda’s objections, it was harmless, and we need not explore whether the

                                           7
Case: 19-40904      Document: 00516858401           Page: 8    Date Filed: 08/15/2023

                                     No. 19-40904

   documents were in fact competent summary judgment evidence. With that,
   we proceed to the merits.
          B.     False Arrest
          1.     Whether Lopez had lawful grounds to arrest Sauceda
          The Fourth Amendment, incorporated against the States via the
   Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, protects the right of persons
   to be secure in their “persons, houses, papers, and effects . . . against
   unreasonable searches and seizures.” U.S. Const. amend. IV. “A
   warrantless arrest must be based on ‘probable cause.’” Deville v. Marcantel,
   567 F.3d 156, 164 (5th Cir. 2009) (quoting Resendiz v. Miller, 203 F.3d 902,
   903 (5th Cir. 2000)). “Probable cause to arrest exists where the facts and
   circumstances within the arresting officers’ knowledge and of which they had
   reasonably trustworthy information are sufficient in themselves to warrant a
   [person] of reasonable caution in the belief that an offense has been or is being
   committed.” United States v. Kye Soo Lee, 962 F.2d 430, 435 (5th Cir. 1992)
   (cleaned up; alteration added). “These long-prevailing standards seek to
   safeguard citizens from rash and unreasonable interferences with privacy and
   from unfounded charges of crime.” Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160,
   176 (1949).
          In addition to the probable cause requirement, the Fourth
   Amendment limits an officer’s ability to enter a private dwelling to make a
   warrantless arrest. See Brigham City, Utah v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398, 403
   (2006) (“It is a basic principle of Fourth Amendment law that searches and
   seizures inside a home without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable.”)
   (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Groh v. Ramirez, 540 U.S. 551,
   559 (2004)). As the Supreme Court stated more than six decades ago: “The
   Fourth Amendment, and the personal right which it secures, have a long
   history. At the very core stands the right of a man to retreat into his own

                                          8
Case: 19-40904        Document: 00516858401              Page: 9       Date Filed: 08/15/2023

                                         No. 19-40904

   home and there be free from unreasonable government intrusion.”
   Silverman v. United States, 365 U.S. 505, 511 (1961). See also United States v.
   United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, 407 U.S. 297,
   313 (1972) (“[P]hysical entry of the home is the chief evil against which the
   wording of the Fourth Amendment is directed.”). Therefore, absent an
   exception to the warrant requirement, warrantless arrests in the home are
   prohibited by the Fourth Amendment. See Lange v. California, 141 S. Ct.
   2011, 2017 (2021); Brigham City, 547 U.S. at 403. And the “curtilage” of the
   home—that is, “the area ‘immediately surrounding and associated with the
   home’”—is “‘part of the home itself for Fourth Amendment purposes.’”
   Florida v. Jardines, 133 S. Ct. 1409, 1414-15 (2013) (quoting Oliver v. United
   States, 466 U.S. 170, 180 (1984)).
           The district court held, and the parties do not dispute, that Lopez
   arrested Sauceda in his front yard without a warrant. Defendants have
   identified five offenses for which they claim Lopez could have lawfully
   arrested Sauceda: (i) disorderly conduct; 2 (ii) failure to identify; 3 (iii) evading

           2
              A person commits the offense of disorderly conduct in Texas “if he intentionally
   or knowingly: (1) uses abusive, indecent, profane, or vulgar language in a public place, and
   the language by its very utterance tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace; (2)
   makes an offensive gesture or display in a public place, and the gesture or display tends to
   incite an immediate breach of the peace; … [or] (4) abuses or threatens a person in a public
   place in an obviously offensive manner.” Tex. Penal Code § 42.01(a). Texas courts have
   held that these provisions apply only to “fighting words or acts.” Ross v. State, 802 S.W.2d
   308, 314-15 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1990, no pet.); see generally Chaplinsky v. State of New
   Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 572 (1942) (recognizing the State’s authority, consistent with the
   First Amendment, to proscribe “fighting words”).
           3
             A person commits the offense of failure to identify in Texas “if he intentionally
   refuses to give his name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has
   lawfully arrested the person and requested the information.” Penal Code § 38.02(a).

                                                9
Case: 19-40904        Document: 00516858401                Page: 10        Date Filed: 08/15/2023

                                           No. 19-40904

   arrest or detention; 4 (iv) resisting arrest; 5 and (v) assault on a public servant. 6
   We examine each theory in turn.
           i.       Disorderly conduct
           Lopez claims that Sauceda’s allegedly vulgar language and gestures
   toward Cortez constituted disorderly conduct under Texas law, furnishing
   probable cause to arrest him.
           We need not decide whether Sauceda’s actions—as described by
   Cortez—fit the statutory definition of disorderly conduct under § 42.01(a),
   or whether an officer would have probable cause to make an arrest where the
   alleged misconduct occurred outside of the officer’s presence, was based on
   an uncorroborated statement by one witness, and was immediately denied by
   the alleged offender. It suffices to conclude that that, even if probable cause
   existed to arrest Sauceda for disorderly conduct, Lopez lacked authority to
   enter the curtilage of Sauceda’s home to arrest him for this purpose.

           4
             A person commits the offense of evading arrest in Texas “if he intentionally flees
   from a person he knows is a peace officer or federal special investigator attempting lawfully
   to arrest or detain him.” Tex. Penal Code § 38.02(a).
           5
             A person commits the offense of resisting arrest in Texas “if he intentionally
   prevents or obstructs a person he knows is a peace officer … from effecting an arrest … by
   using force against the peace officer[.]” In the context of determining whether probable
   cause exists to arrest an individual for resisting arrest, “[i]t is no defense … that the arrest
   … was unlawful.” Tex. Penal Code § 38.03(b).
           6
              A person commits assault in Texas if he “(1) intentionally, knowingly, or
   recklessly causes bodily injury to another … ; or (3) intentionally or knowingly causes
   physical contact with another when the person knows or should reasonably believe that the
   other will regard the contact as provocative or offensive.” Tex. Penal Code § 22.01(a).
   Such an offense is a third degree felony if “committed against … a person the actors knows
   is a public servant while the public servant is lawfully discharging an official duty[.]” Id. §
   22.01(b)(1).

                                                 10
Case: 19-40904     Document: 00516858401           Page: 11   Date Filed: 08/15/2023

                                    No. 19-40904

          To the extent Lopez contends that Sauceda’s front yard was not part
   of the “home” for Fourth Amendment purposes, our review of the summary
   judgment record leads us to reject that contention. The videos clearly show
   what appears to be a single-family home on a normal-sized lot in a residential
   neighborhood. The sides of the lot that are visible are enclosed by a chain-
   link fence that is almost as tall as an average adult. There are also bushes
   behind the fence that obscure parts of the yard from street view. The only
   apparent access point is a gate, which Sauceda was seen closing in one of the
   videos, and which was not opened again until Lopez forced his way through
   it.
          “[I]t is plain that the fence surrounding the residence serves to
   demark a specific area of land immediately adjacent to the house that is
   readily identifiable as part and parcel of the house.” United States v. Dunn,
   480 U.S. 294, 302 (1987). A case factually similar to this one was Fixel v.
   Wainwright, 492 F.2d 480 (5th Cir. 1974), in which our Court held that an
   apartment’s backyard, which was inaccessible to others and “completely
   removed from the street and surrounded by a chain link fence,” was
   “sufficiently removed and private in character” to constitute part of the
   curtilage. Id. at 484. As the Supreme Court has noted, “for most homes, the
   boundaries of the curtilage will be clearly marked; and the conception
   defining the curtilage—as the area around the home to which the activity of
   home life extends—is a familiar one easily understood from our daily
   experience.” Oliver, 466 U.S. at 182 n.12. In this case, Sauceda has, at
   minimum, raised genuine issues of fact as to his yard’s curtilage status.
          Because Lopez entered the curtilage of Sauceda’s home without a
   warrant, we must next determine whether an exception to the warrant
   requirement applies. See Lange, 141 S. Ct. at 2017; Brigham, 547 U.S. at 403.
   Relying on what is commonly known as the hot pursuit exception, Lopez

                                         11
Case: 19-40904     Document: 00516858401           Page: 12    Date Filed: 08/15/2023

                                    No. 19-40904

   asserts that he acted lawfully in attempting to stop Sauceda from walking
   back into his house.
          Under the hot pursuit exception, “the pursuit of a suspect [is an]
   exigent circumstance[] that may excuse an otherwise unconstitutional
   intrusion into a residence.” United States v. Jones, 239 F.3d 716, 720 (5th
   Cir. 2001). But for the exception to apply, the suspect must be retreating
   from a “public place” to a “private place.” United States v. Santana, 427
   U.S. 38, 43 (1976); Fontenot v. Cormier, 56 F.3d 669, 674 (5th Cir. 1995);
   United States v. Varkonyi, 645 F.2d 453, 457 (5th Cir. Unit A 1981). A
   suspect’s movement from one point inside his home to another cannot
   trigger this exception. See Hogan v. Cunningham, 722 F.3d 725, 733 (2013)
   (holding that “[o]fficers [could not] justify their warrantless entry based
   upon their hot pursuit” because the suspect “did not retreat into his
   apartment from a public place” and “was fully inside his apartment at all
   times”). And that is all Sauceda attempted to do here: move from the
   curtilage of his property—a part of the home, Jardines, 133 S. Ct. at 1414-
   15—to another point inside the home.
          Lopez and the district court relied on language in Varkonyi stating that
   “law enforcement officers may enter upon private property to make
   warrantless arrests, provided the arrest is based on probable cause and the
   person is in ‘plain view.’” 645 F.2d at 457 (citing Santana, 427 U.S. at 42-
   43; Hester v. United States, 265 U.S. 57, 59 (1924)). In our view, Lopez and
   the district court read this passage too literally. A suspect might be in “plain
   view” of the officers if he stands by an open window or on an upper
   balcony—surely this would not authorize the police to dispense with the
   warrant requirement if they wish to pass through the front door to arrest

                                         12
Case: 19-40904        Document: 00516858401              Page: 13       Date Filed: 08/15/2023

                                         No. 19-40904

   him. 7 We think the same is true when a suspect stands within the curtilage
   of their house from behind a closed gate, albeit visible to the public.
           The better way to interpret Varkonyi’s reference to “plain view” is as
   part of its overall discussion of what constitutes a “public place”; that is,
   “an[] area where there is no expectation of privacy.” 645 F.2d at 457. As
   Varkonyi held, an area may technically be “private property,” yet be a
   “public place” for Fourth Amendment purposes. See id. at 457-58 (holding
   that a private scrap metal yard located behind a fence but with its gate open
   was a public place); see also Santana, 427 U.S. at 42-43 (holding that the
   threshold of an open doorway was a public place); Hester, 265 U.S. at 58-59
   (holding that private land near the home and accessible to federal agents was
   a public place). However, six years after Varkonyi was decided, the Supreme
   Court clarified that the “steps taken … to protect [an] area from observation
   by people passing by” are just one of several factors used to determine
   whether an area constitutes part of the curtilage protected by the Fourth
   Amendment. Dunn, 480 U.S. at 301. Notably, courts must also consider
   “whether the area is included within an enclosure surrounding the home.”
   Id. In Santana, Hester, and Varkonyi, the places in question were either
   unenclosed or accessible through an open door or gate. Here, by contrast,
   Sauceda’s yard was fenced off and his gate was closed. This case is therefore
   much closer to Fixel than Varkonyi. See Fixel, 492 F.2d at 484.
           Because the hot pursuit exception does not apply (and because Lopez
   has not identified any other applicable exception to the warrant requirement),

           7
             Of course, in some such situations—such as a suspect firing a rifle from his gated
   yard into the street—the police are justified in making a warrantless entry and arrest. But
   those cases do not rely on the hot pursuit exception; they rely on other exceptions to the
   warrant requirement. For example, in the hypothetical just described, the officers’ entry
   would be justified by the “immediate safety risks to officers and others.” Jones, 239 F.3d
   at 720.

                                               13
Case: 19-40904      Document: 00516858401            Page: 14     Date Filed: 08/15/2023

                                      No. 19-40904

   Sauceda has raised genuine issues of fact as to whether Lopez had authority
   to enter his property to arrest him for disorderly conduct.
          ii.     Failure to identify
          Defendants’ failure-to-identify argument can be dismissed quickly. A
   person’s mere refusal to identify themselves to a police officer is not a crime
   under § 38.02 unless that person has already been “lawfully arrested.” Tex.
   Penal Code § 38.02(a). Such a refusal can never supply probable cause
   to make the initial arrest. See Crutsinger v. State, 206 S.W.3d 607, 610 (Tex.
   Crim. App. 2006) (“When appellant refused to give Garcia his name, he was
   not under arrest. Therefore, [§ 38.02(a)] does not apply.”). Here, Sauceda
   had not yet been placed under arrest when he declined to produce his
   identification; and even if he had, Defendants would still have to account for
   whether that arrest was lawful. 8 In any event, our conclusion in the previous
   section that Lopez lacked authority to make a warrantless entry onto
   Sauceda’s property applies with equal force to Lopez’s argument that he
   could have entered the property to arrest Sauceda for failure to identify. See
   Part II.B.1.i, supra.
          iii.    Evading arrest or detention
          Defendants assert that when Sauceda walked from his yard back
   towards his home, he committed the offense of evading arrest or detention.
   But as discussed above, Lopez did not have grounds to enter Sauceda’s
   curtilage without a warrant, so an arrest for evading arrest or detention could
   not lawfully be made. See Part II.B.1.i, supra. Moreover, Sauceda has at least

          8
              Defendants’ argument that Sauceda’s failure to provide identification was
   tantamount to providing false or fictitious information does not require an extended
   answer. The Texas Penal Code separately addresses individuals who refuse to identify
   themselves and those who provide false identification. Tex. Penal Code § 38.02(a),
   (b). In the former case, a lawful arrest is always required. See id.

                                           14
Case: 19-40904     Document: 00516858401           Page: 15   Date Filed: 08/15/2023

                                    No. 19-40904

   raised a genuine issue of fact as to whether Lopez possessed probable cause
   to arrest him for this offense. Specifically, there is a genuine dispute as to
   whether, during the few seconds in which Sauceda walked away, Lopez was
   “attempting … to or arrest or detain” him. Tex. Penal Code § 38.02(a).
   Sauceda specifically denied that Lopez ever told him he was under arrest.
   And nothing in the record indicates that Lopez said or did anything, at that
   time, to communicate that Sauceda was not free to leave. Although Lopez
   told Sauceda, “I am coming after you, brother”—which, according to Lopez,
   notified Sauceda that he was indeed under arrest—body camera footage
   shows that Lopez was no longer walking away when these words were
   spoken. Thus, Lopez could not have lawfully arrested Sauceda for evading
   arrest or detention.
          iv.    Resisting arrest
          The district court concluded that Lopez had probable cause to arrest
   Sauceda for resisting arrest after Sauceda “batted [Lopez’s] hands away” as
   Lopez pursued him into the yard. We agree that Lopez had the requisite
   probable cause to arrest Sauceda once Sauceda began resisting. But that does
   not end our inquiry, for—as we explain below—a reasonable factfinder could
   still find that Lopez made an unlawful arrest before Sauceda’s resistance.
          “Supreme Court and Fifth Circuit caselaw makes clear that a Fourth
   Amendment seizure occurs in one of two ways: either an officer applies
   physical force or an officer makes a show of authority to which an individual
   submits.” Arnold v. Williams, 979 F.3d 262, 268 (2020). In order for such a
   seizure to constitute an arrest, the circumstances must be such that “a
   reasonable person in the suspect’s position would have understood the
   situation to constitute a restraint on freedom of movement of the degree
   which the law associates with a formal arrest.” Carroll v. Ellington, 800 F.3d
   154, 170 (5th Cir. 2015) (quoting United States v. Corral-Franco, 848 F.2d 536,

                                         15
Case: 19-40904     Document: 00516858401           Page: 16   Date Filed: 08/15/2023

                                    No. 19-40904

   540 (5th Cir. 1988)). An arrest may be “effected by the slightest application
   of physical force”; “the mere grasping or application of physical force with
   lawful authority, whether or not it succeed[s] in subduing the arrestee, [is]
   sufficient.” California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621, 624, 625 (1991); see also
   Torres v. Madrid, 141 S. Ct. 989, 995 (2021) (“‘[M]erely touching’ [is]
   sufficient to constitute an arrest”) (quoting Hodari D., 499 U.S. at 625).
   “Put another way, an officer’s application of physical force to the body of a
   person ‘for the purpose of arresting him’ [is] itself an arrest—not an
   attempted arrest—even if the person [does] not yield.” Torres, 141 S. Ct. at
   995 (emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Hodari
   D., 499 U.S. at 624).
          Here, Lopez reached for Sauceda immediately after opening the gate
   into his yard. His body camera does not clearly show whether Lopez made
   physical contact with Sauceda. But Lopez testified that he “got a hold of
   [Sauceda’s] left hand.” That is enough to constitute a seizure under the
   Fourth Amendment. See Torres, 141 S. Ct. at 995 (“As applied to a person,
   ‘the word “seizure” readily bears the meaning of a laying on of hands or
   application of physical force to restrain movement, even when it is ultimately
   unsuccessful.’ Then, as now, an ordinary user of the English language could
   remark: ‘She seized the purse-snatcher, but he broke out of her grasp.’”)
   (brackets and internal citations omitted) (quoting Hodari D., 499 U.S. at
   626); compare Arnold, 979 F.3d at 268 (holding that a seizure did not occur
   where the officer unsuccessfully attempted to grab the suspect). And
   Lopez’s seizure of Sauceda was an arrest under all of the attending
   circumstances. That is because, as the district court found, Lopez’s words—
   “I am going after you, brother,” spoken just seconds before grabbing
   Sauceda’s hand—reasonably indicated to Sauceda that he was being
   arrested.   Therefore, a rational factfinder could determine that Lopez
   arrested Sauceda before Sauceda applied any resistance.

                                         16
Case: 19-40904        Document: 00516858401              Page: 17       Date Filed: 08/15/2023

                                         No. 19-40904

           Any arrest that Lopez made when he opened Sauceda’s gate and
   grabbed his hand could not have been lawful. As we have explained above,
   Lopez had no legal justification to enter Sauceda’s property without a
   warrant; additionally, he lacked probable cause to arrest Sauceda for failure-
   to-identify or evading arrest. Thus, a jury could find that when Sauceda
   “resisted” by pulling out of Lopez’s grip, he had already been placed under
   an unlawful arrest. Even if an unlawful arrest becomes lawful moments later
   by virtue of the arrestee’s resistance, there is no reason why the officer
   cannot be held liable for the unlawful part. 9 For that reason, the district court
   erred in granting summary judgment on the grounds that Lopez had probable
   cause to arrest Sauceda for resisting arrest.
           v.      Assault on a public servant
           Finally, Defendants aver that Lopez had probable cause to arrest
   Sauceda for assault on a public servant. As discussed in the immediately
   preceding section, however, Sauceda was already “arrested” when Lopez
   opened the gate and grabbed his hand. Lopez’s body camera footage shows
   that Sauceda did not do anything resembling an assault before this arrest
   occurred. Therefore, summary judgment cannot be granted on this ground.
                                              ***
           For these reasons, we conclude that Sauceda has raised genuine issues
   of material fact as to whether Lopez had lawful authority to arrest him.

           9
              Even nominal damages are recoverable in a false arrest action under 42 U.S.C. §
   1983. See Kelly v. Curtis, 21 F.3d 1544, 1557 (11th Cir. 1994). And, in some cases, a § 1983
   plaintiff awarded nominal damages will be entitled to attorney fees as well. See 42 U.S.C.
   § 1988; Grisham v. City of Fort Worth, 837 F.3d 564 (5th Cir. 2016).

                                               17
Case: 19-40904     Document: 00516858401            Page: 18   Date Filed: 08/15/2023

                                     No. 19-40904

          2.     Qualified Immunity
          Because the district court held that Lopez had probable cause to arrest
   Sauceda, it concluded that Sauceda had necessarily failed to overcome
   Lopez’s qualified immunity defense. However, as we have just noted, there
   are genuine issues of material fact as to the lawfulness of Sauceda’s arrest.
   We must therefore consider whether the summary judgment record could
   show that “any reasonable official in the [Lopez’s] shoes would have
   understood that he was violating” Sauceda’s constitutional rights in light of
   clearly established law. Plumhoff, 572 U.S. at 778; see Darden, 880 F.3d at
   727.
          Lopez’s argument that he is entitled to qualified immunity is
   essentially duplicative of his argument that his arrest of Sauceda was
   supported by probable cause. The district court similarly granted Lopez
   qualified immunity based on its finding that he had probable cause to arrest
   Sauceda for resisting arrest. Yet having found that the acts constituting
   resisting arrest or assault on a public official occurred after the arrest, and
   viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Sauceda, Lopez did not have
   probable cause to enter Sauceda’s property to execute a warrantless arrest.
   Washington v. Salazar, 747 F. App’x 211 (5th Cir. 2018); see also Darden, 880
   F.3d at 727 (at the summary judgment stage we must “view the facts in the
   light most favorable to the nonmoving party” even in context of qualified
   immunity). Because Lopez did not have probable cause to arrest Sauceda for
   resisting arrest, the district court’s provision of qualified immunity to Lopez
   on this basis must be reversed. Qualified immunity may nonetheless protect
   Lopez’s conduct, however, if “a reasonable officer could have believed [the
   arrest] to be lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information the
   [arresting] officer[] possessed.”. Salazar, 747 F. App’x at 215. We thus
   remand to the district court to determine whether Lopez’s conduct was
   objectively reasonable in these circumstances.

                                          18
Case: 19-40904     Document: 00516858401            Page: 19    Date Filed: 08/15/2023

                                     No. 19-40904

          C.     Excessive Force
          “The Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable search
   and seizure requires that officers refrain from using excessive force, that is,
   more force than is reasonably necessary, when effectuating an arrest.”
   United States v. Brugman, 364 F.3d 613, 616 (5th Cir. 2004). “It is clearly
   established law in this circuit that in order to state a claim for excessive force
   in violation of the Constitution, a plaintiff must allege (1) an injury, which (2)
   resulted directly and only from the use of force that was clearly excessive to
   the need; and the excessiveness of which was (3) objectively unreasonable.”
   Id. (quoting Bazan v. Hidalgo County, 246 F.3d 481, 487 (5th Cir. 2001)
   (citation omitted)). “The injury must be more than a de minimis injury and
   must be evaluated in the context in which the force was deployed.” Glenn v.
   City of Tyler, 242 F.3d 307, 314 (5th Cir. 2001).
          The district court held that while Sauceda was unquestionably injured
   during his interaction with Lopez, Lopez’s use of force was objectively
   reasonable considering Sauceda’s resistance. In making this determination,
   the district court discredited Sauceda’s testimony that Lopez hit him with a
   baton as contradicted by the video footage of the interaction, which
   “unambiguously establishe[d]” that Lopez did not strike Sauceda with a
   baton. In the absence of competent evidence that Lopez struck Sauceda with
   a baton, the district court concluded that Lopez did not use force that was
   objectively unreasonable in light of Sauceda’s resistance. We agree.
          The video footage of the interaction between Lopez and Sauceda does
   not provide any evidence that Lopez struck Sauceda with his baton, and as
   such, the district court did not err in discrediting Sauceda’s testimony to the
   contrary. See Shepherd on behalf of Est. of Shepherd v. City of Shreveport, 920
   F.3d 278, 283 (5th Cir. 2019) (“when there is a videotape that discredits the
   non-movant’s description of facts, we will consider the facts in the light

                                           19
Case: 19-40904        Document: 00516858401               Page: 20        Date Filed: 08/15/2023

                                           No. 19-40904

   depicted by the videotape”) (cleaned up). Sauceda did not present any
   further competent summary judgment evidence demonstrating that Lopez
   struck Sauceda with a baton, 10 and Sauceda does not argue that Lopez’s use
   of force would have been unreasonable in the absence of a baton strike.
   Because the district court properly discredited Sauceda’s evidence regarding
   Lopez’s use of the baton, the district court did not err in finding no genuine
   issue of material fact as to whether Lopez used excessive force that was
   objectively unreasonable under the circumstances. We affirm the district
   court’s dismissal of Sauceda’s excessive force claim.
           D.       Municipal Liability
           We similarly affirm the district court with respect to Sauceda’s
   municipal liability claim against the City. Sauceda has failed to show that
   Lopez’s allegedly unconstitutional acts were based on any official policy or
   widespread pattern of conduct of the City. At most, Sauceda points to: (i)
   the affirmative deposition responses of Lieutenant Martin Morales, Jr.—the
   San Benito Chief of Police at the time of Sauceda’s arrest—when Morales
   was asked whether it was “city policy” to arrest individuals who refuse to
   provide a driver’s license upon request, and (ii) Lopez’s affirmative
   deposition responses when asked whether he was following City “policy” in
   arresting Sauceda. This is insufficient. Sauceda conceded below that the
   “relevant policymaker” was the San Benito City Commission, not Morales.

           10 Defendants correctly note that Perez’s legal conclusion that Officer Lopez used
   excessive force is irrelevant and entitled to no weight, as “experts are not permitted to offer
   legal conclusions.” United States v. Oti, 872 F.3d 678, 691-92 (5th Cr. 2017). Sauceda also
   claims that the court failed to properly credit his submitted affidavit from another neighbor,
   Jaime Salas, who stated that he witnessed the arrest, and that Lopez “barge[d] into
   Sauceda’s property and sw[u]ng his baton.” However, even if this evidence were assumed
   to be true in its entirety, it does not allege that Lopez actually hit or even attempted to hit
   Sauceda with his baton, and thus does not support a claim of excessive force.

                                                 20
Case: 19-40904     Document: 00516858401           Page: 21    Date Filed: 08/15/2023

                                    No. 19-40904

   And there is no record evidence that a policy to arrest individuals for failing
   to produce identification was adopted or promulgated by the City
   Commission. Nor has Sauceda produced evidence of “a widespread practice
   that [was] so common and well-settled as to constitute a custom that fairly
   represent[ed] municipal policy.” Fennell, 804 F.3d at 413 (cleaned up). A
   solitary instance of violating Sauceda’s rights cannot confer liability on the
   City. See Sanchez v. Young Cty., Texas, 866 F.3d 274, 280 (5th Cir. 2017),
   cert. denied, 139 S. Ct. 126 (2018) (“A municipality is almost never liable for
   an isolated unconstitutional action on the part of an employee.”).
          Sauceda alternatively contends that the City is liable for Officer
   Lopez’s actions because it failed to provide him with sufficient training and
   adequate supervision. Municipal liability for failure to train or supervise
   attaches when the failure “reflects a municipality’s deliberate or conscious
   choice” such that the choice is a policy. Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 389
   (1989) (internal quotation marks omitted). For this liability to attach,
   Sauceda must also show that (1) the training or hiring procedures of the
   municipality’s policymaker were inadequate; (2) the municipality’s
   policymaker was deliberately indifferent in adopting the hiring or training
   policy; and (3) the inadequate hiring or training policy directly caused the
   plaintiff’s injury.” Baker v. Putnal, 75 F.3d 190, 200 (5th Cir. 1996) (citing
   Canton, 489 U.S. at 385–87).
          It is not enough that the failure to supervise be due to negligence or
   ineptitude on the part of the City; Sauceda’s burden is to prove it was a result
   of deliberate indifference. Alton v. Texas A&M Univ., 168 F.3d 196, 201 (5th
   Cir. 1999) (“Actions and decisions by officials that are merely inept,
   erroneous, ineffective, or negligent do not amount to deliberate indifference
   and do not divest officials of qualified immunity.”). The fact that this was an
   isolated incident raises that burden further because the “single-incident
   method of proving deliberate indifference” is “generally reserved” for cases

                                         21
Case: 19-40904     Document: 00516858401            Page: 22   Date Filed: 08/15/2023

                                     No. 19-40904

   in which “no training whatsoever” occurred. Littell v. Houston Indep. Sch.
   Dist., 894 F.3d 616, 625 (5th Cir. 2018) (citing Peña v. City of Rio Grande City,
   879 F.3d 613, 624 (5th Cir. 2018)). Here, Sauceda did not produce evidence
   that could establish that Lopez received no training, that his training was
   intentionally or deliberately inadequate, or that the City had a policy
   endorsing Officer Lopez’s actions. Because of this, the district court found
   correctly that Sauceda failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact
   supporting municipal liability.
          E.     Defendants’ Untimely Motion for Summary Judgment
          Finally, we consider Sauceda’s argument that the district court failed
   to comply with Rule 6(b) by considering Defendants’ untimely motion for
   summary judgment.        Sauceda argues that the district court erred by
   considering Defendants’ motion for summary judgment even though it was
   filed late without leave. Defendants did not file their motion for summary
   judgment until four days past the deadline given by the district court. The
   district court then issued an order sua sponte taking notice of the motion for
   summary judgment and, without explanation, considering it timely filed.
          Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1) allows the court to extend the
   time within which an act must be done for good cause, but explicitly
   distinguishes between extensions to time made before its expiration (which
   the court can make with or without motion or notice) and extensions to time
   made after its expiration (which the court can make only on motion). Fed. R.
   Civ. P. 6(b)(1). Further, a court may only extend the time for filings after a
   deadline has expired “if the party failed to act because of excusable neglect.”
   Id. The Defendants did not move the court for an extension of time before
   this retroactive extension was granted and failed to provide any explanation
   for the delay in filing. Therefore, they have not shown good cause for the
   delay, let alone demonstrated excusable neglect, and the district court erred

                                          22
Case: 19-40904     Document: 00516858401           Page: 23   Date Filed: 08/15/2023

                                    No. 19-40904

   in sua sponte extending the deadline for Defendants’ motion for summary
   judgment.
          However, we hold that this error was harmless. Sauceda has not
   identified or shown any way in which he was prejudiced by this error and the
   four-day delay that resulted from the acceptance of the late filing. Yesudian
   ex rel. U.S. v. Howard Univ., 270 F.3d 969, 971 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (no reversible
   error where “delay was brief, and there is no suggestion that [untimely filing]
   had a material effect on the proceedings”). Moreover, Sauceda had notice
   of and access to the motion for summary judgment, in the form in which it
   would later be filed, when the Defendants attached it as an exhibit to their
   Motion for Leave to File a Motion for Summary Judgment in excess of the
   district court’s page limit. This notice and Sauceda’s failure to identify how
   the error prejudiced him render the error harmless.
                                        ***
          For the foregoing reasons, we: (1) AFFIRM the district court’s entry
   of summary judgment in favor of the City and in favor of Lopez on Sauceda’s
   excessive force claim; (2) REVERSE the district court’s entry of summary
   judgment in favor of Lopez on Sauceda’s false arrest claim; and (3) and
   REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

                                         23