Court Opinion

ID: 9905338
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-29 01:00:51.775517+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:23:03.196927
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-30236        Document: 00516982174             Page: 1      Date Filed: 11/28/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________
                                                                               United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit
                                      No. 23-30236
                                    Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                    ____________                              November 28, 2023
                                                                                 Lyle W. Cayce
   Willie Levens, II,                                                                 Clerk

                                                                    Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                            versus

   Louisiana Insurance Guaranty Association,

                                                         Intervenor Plaintiff—Appellee,

   Dexter Gaspard; Tim Soignet; Atlantic Specialty
   Insurance Company,

                                              Defendants—Appellees.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Eastern District of Louisiana
                               USDC No. 2:21-CV-35
                     ______________________________

   Before Davis, Willett, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-30236      Document: 00516982174          Page: 2    Date Filed: 11/28/2023

                                    No. 23-30236

          Plaintiff-Appellant, Willie Levens, II, proceeding pro se and in forma
   pauperis, appeals the district court’s summary judgment in favor of
   Defendant-Appellee, Dexter Gaspard, dismissing Plaintiff’s 42 U.S.C.
   § 1983 claim.    Because Gaspard is entitled to qualified immunity, we
   AFFIRM.
                               I. BACKGROUND
          On February 22, 2020, Gaspard, who is a sheriff’s deputy with the
   Terrebonne Sheriff’s Office, was eating at Honest Abe’s BBQ in Houma,
   Louisiana. At that time, Gaspard was not on duty and wearing plain clothes.
   Plaintiff, who worked part time at the restaurant, previously met Gaspard
   when he was in uniform. While Gaspard was eating, a Mardi Gras party bus
   with parade partygoers pulled up to the restaurant. Plaintiff departed the bus
   with some partygoers and entered the restaurant.
          In his complaint, Plaintiff alleged that Gaspard was “grossly
   intoxicated” and mistook him for another individual. Plaintiff asserted that
   Gaspard pushed him out the door to the restaurant, causing him to fall and
   “sustain severe injuries.” Plaintiff further alleged that Gaspard followed him
   outside and “forcibly restrained him against a vehicle by holding his elbow
   against his neck.” Gaspard informed him that he was a police officer and that
   he had called additional police officers to the scene. Plaintiff further alleged
   that once the additional deputies arrived, they determined he was not
   suspected of any wrongdoing and allowed him to leave the premises.
          In Gaspard’s deposition, however, he testified that it was not he who
   was intoxicated, but Plaintiff. Specifically, Gaspard testified that after
   Plaintiff entered the restaurant, he observed Plaintiff being “belligerent,”
   “hollering,” and “spill[ing] some beer on the floor.” An owner of the
   restaurant (Tyler Verdin) then asked Plaintiff to stop and leave. Gaspard saw
   Verdin grab Plaintiff and try to escort Plaintiff out the door, but Plaintiff

                                          2
Case: 23-30236      Document: 00516982174          Page: 3    Date Filed: 11/28/2023

                                    No. 23-30236

   pulled away causing Verdin to fall over a child’s highchair. Gaspard testified
   that at that point, the customers in the restaurant became frightened.
   Gaspard stood up and grabbed Plaintiff, but Plaintiff pushed him backwards.
   Gaspard then stepped forward with Plaintiff, and they exited the door, at
   which point Gaspard “let him go.” Plaintiff then ran into a wheel stop in the
   parking lot, falling backwards on his bottom.
          The security footage is consistent with Gaspard’s testimony. It shows
   Gaspard pushing Plaintiff out the door to the restaurant, and Plaintiff falling
   backwards. Gaspard and others followed Plaintiff outside. They are visibly
   agitated with Plaintiff, motion for him to stay out of the restaurant, and
   someone even locks the door to prevent Plaintiff from reentering. Plaintiff
   shows obvious signs of intoxication—he can barely standup and walk.
   Plaintiff’s fellow paradegoers surround him after he stands up, try to keep
   him upright, and restrain him from walking back towards the restaurant.
   After Plaintiff goes back into the party bus, and then comes back out with
   another man, he approaches Gaspard. Gaspard holds his arm up to prevent
   Plaintiff from reentering the restaurant. Finally, Plaintiff, Gaspard, and the
   other man walk to the other side of the restaurant, out of the view of the
   security cameras.
          Plaintiff alleges that Gaspard then forcibly restrained him by holding
   his elbow against his neck. Gaspard testified that he actually pulled Plaintiff
   out of oncoming traffic in the street and that he held Plaintiff’s arm while
   Plaintiff leaned against a vehicle until other sheriff deputies arrived on the
   scene. In his complaint, Plaintiff seeks damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for
   excessive use of force and unlawful detention in violation of his constitutional
   rights, as well as damages under state law.
          Gaspard moved for summary judgment seeking dismissal of Plaintiff’s
   complaint based on qualified immunity because his actions constituted a

                                          3
Case: 23-30236          Document: 00516982174               Page: 4       Date Filed: 11/28/2023

                                            No. 23-30236

   reasonable use of force. The district court granted the motion, determining
   that based on the video surveillance and deposition testimony, Gaspard’s use
   of force was reasonable. The district court further declined to exercise
   supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims.
          Plaintiff filed a motion for new trial.                He attached an unsworn
   statement, purportedly signed by Verdin, stating that Plaintiff never posed a
   threat to anyone inside the restaurant; that Gaspard aggressively pushed
   Plaintiff out the restaurant, put Plaintiff in a “choke hold,” and used a racial
   epithet; and that the officers who arrived at the scene tried to get Verdin to
   make a false statement so they could arrest Plaintiff. The district court
   construed Plaintiff’s motion as a motion to alter or amend the judgment
   under Rule 59(e) and denied the motion. Plaintiff filed a timely notice of
   appeal.
                                        II. DISCUSSION
          “This court reviews a district court’s grant of summary judgment de
   novo, applying the same legal standards as the district court.” 1 Summary
   judgment is warranted when “there is no genuine dispute as to any material
   fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” 2 We view
   the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and draw all
   reasonable inferences in his favor. 3 However, when video evidence is
   available, we are not bound to adopt the non-movant’s version of the facts if
   his version is contradicted by that evidence. 4 To prevail on his excessive
   force claim, Plaintiff must show “(1) injury, (2) which resulted directly and
          _____________________
          1
              Scott v. City of Mandeville, 69 F.4th 249, 254 (5th Cir. 2023) (citation omitted).
          2
              Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).
          3
              Scott, 69 F.4th at 254.
          4
              Id.

                                                  4
Case: 23-30236          Document: 00516982174                 Page: 5    Date Filed: 11/28/2023

                                               No. 23-30236

   only from a use of force that was clearly excessive, and (3) the excessiveness
   of which was clearly unreasonable.” 5
          Plaintiff asserts that Gaspard used “unreasonable and unnecessary
   force when he grabbed [him] and threw [him] out of Honest Abe’s
   Restaurant.” He asserts that the “video footage shows . . . Gaspard using
   excessive and unnecessary force.” We disagree. The video footage shows
   that Gaspard’s 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.” 6 “[R]elevant 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 he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to
   evade arrest by flight.’” 7
          Here, the video footage shows that Plaintiff was severely
   intoxicated—he could barely standup and walk. Although there is no video
   footage of what occurred while Plaintiff was inside the restaurant, it is clear
   from the agitated looks of Gaspard and others who followed Plaintiff outside
   that Plaintiff had been disruptive and uncooperative and was not welcome in
   the restaurant. Moreover, it is apparent that Plaintiff’s behavior was a threat
   to the safety of those inside the restaurant, as someone locked the doors to
   the restaurant immediately after Plaintiff exited so that he could not gain
   reentry. While the video shows that Gaspard pushed Plaintiff out the door,
   Gaspard’s use of force was not clearly excessive or clearly unreasonable in
   light of Plaintiff’s severe intoxication and threatening behavior.

          _____________________
          5
              Id. at 256 (citation omitted).
          6
              Id. (citing Graham v. Conner, 490 U.S. 386, 396 (1989)).
          7
              Id. (citation omitted).

                                                    5
Case: 23-30236          Document: 00516982174                Page: 6       Date Filed: 11/28/2023

                                             No. 23-30236

          Plaintiff argues that the affidavit of Tyler Verdin supports his
   excessive force claim. Plaintiff submitted, for the first time, the unsworn
   statement of Verdin with his motion to alter and amend the judgment. The
   district court properly rejected the statement under Rule 56(c) because it was
   not an affidavit and under 28 U.S.C. § 1746 because it was not in the proper
   form to be considered a valid unsworn declaration. On appeal, Plaintiff has
   attempted to file the same statement of Verdin, but this time with his
   notarized signature. But, as the Clerk of this Court advised Plaintiff in a letter
   dated June 21, 2023, this Court does not consider evidence furnished for the
   first time on appeal. 8
          Finally, Plaintiff argues in his reply brief that his claim that Gaspard
   choked him should not have been dismissed. We generally do not consider
   arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief and deem those arguments
   waived. 9 Even if we were to consider it, Plaintiff’s claim fails on the merits
   as he alleged no injury associated with the alleged choking. 10
          AFFIRMED.

          _____________________
          8
              Theriot v. Parish of Jefferson, 185 F.3d 477, 491 n.26 (5th Cir. 1999).
          9
              Flex Frac Logistics, LLC v. N.L.R.B., 746 F.3d 205, 208 (5th Cir. 2014).
          10
               See Scott, 69 F.4th at 256.

                                                   6