Court Opinion

ID: 9486615
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 11:54:26.076363+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:51:50.080146
License: Public Domain

REYNALDO G. GARZA, Circuit Judge,
Concurring Specially.
I concur specially in the opinion in this case by my brethern Duhé and Aldisert because the ease is being returned to be tried to a jury on whether or not Officer Denholm used excessive force or not.
I believe that Rankin v. Klevenhagen, 5 F.3d 103 (5th Cir.1993), was decided wrongly. Even the panel admits in the opinion that it creates problems.
In my view, after Hudson v. McMillian, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 995, 117 L.Ed.2d 156 (1992), the type of injury suffered is no longer viable and whenever or not an officer used excessive force, it has to be left to the trier of fact. If no excessive force was used, the officer is acquitted and gets his immunity from suit. If the trier of fact says excessive force was used then he must suffer the consequences.
Personally, I cannot conceive of any scenario where qualified immunity can be granted when there is a disputed question of fact as to whether or not excessive force was used in making an arrest using the factors enunciated in Hudson v. McMillian, as a guide on whether or not there was excessive force used.