Court Opinion

ID: 9907788
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-07 01:00:35.34374+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:03:50.216258
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-30253         Document: 00516992270             Page: 1      Date Filed: 12/06/2023

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

                                             FILED
                                      ____________
                                                                                December 6, 2023
                                        No. 23-30253                                 Lyle W. Cayce
                                      ____________                                        Clerk

   Jason E. Walls, individually and on behalf of his deceased father,
   William E. Walls; William Walls, individually and on behalf of
   his deceased father, William E. Walls,

                                                                    Plaintiffs—Appellees,

                                             versus

   Sheriff’s Office of Caddo Parish; Ryan Chapman;
   Stephen W. Prator,

                                              Defendants—Appellants.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Western District of Louisiana
                                USDC No. 5:22-CV-579
                      ______________________________

   Before Jolly, Engelhardt, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam *:
          William E. Walls died of a heart attack he suffered while detained in
   the back of a Caddo Parish, Louisiana, patrol car. His survivors filed a civil
   rights lawsuit against a Caddo Parish deputy, the Caddo Parish sheriff, and
   the Caddo Parish Sheriff’s Office. The defendants removed the lawsuit to

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5
Case: 23-30253       Document: 00516992270         Page: 2   Date Filed: 12/06/2023

                                    No. 23-30253

   federal court and moved to dismiss several of the plaintiffs’ claims. As
   relevant to this appeal, the deputy invoked qualified immunity to dismiss the
   plaintiffs’ excessive force claim against him. The district court denied
   qualified immunity. The deputy appealed. We AFFIRM.
                                         I.
                                         A.
          On appeal from a denial of qualified immunity at the motion to dismiss
   stage, “[w]e must accept all well-pleaded facts as true, draw all inferences in
   favor of the nonmoving party, and view all facts and inferences in the light
   most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Club Retro, L.L.C. v. Hilton, 568
   F.3d 181, 194 (5th Cir. 2009); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 81(c)(1) (federal
   pleading rules apply to actions removed from state court). Here, the petition
   alleges the following facts.
          On March 9, 2021, Caddo Parish Sheriff’s Office Deputy Ryan
   Chapman and other deputies attempted to execute an arrest warrant for Chad
   Deloach. The deputies believed that Deloach was living on William E.
   Walls’s Keithville property. When the deputies arrived at the property,
   Walls told them he did not know Deloach’s location and cooperated with
   their investigation. Walls invited the deputies into his home so they could
   search for Deloach. Walls also offered to call his son, who lived in a separate
   trailer on his property, and ask him where Deloach was. Deputy Chapman
   rejected Walls’s offer, cursed at him, threatened him, and ordered him back
   inside his home. Walls obeyed but revoked consent for the deputies to re-
   enter his home.
          Upon returning inside his home, Walls observed the deputies
   searching the exterior of another residence on his property. As Walls watched
   the deputies through the windows of his home, he held his phone. Chapman
   saw Walls with his phone and thought that he was videotaping the deputies.

                                         2
Case: 23-30253     Document: 00516992270           Page: 3   Date Filed: 12/06/2023

                                    No. 23-30253

   In response, Chapman forced his way into Walls’s home. Chapman
   “forcefully grabbed” Walls, ROA.16, threw him against his kitchen counter,
   ROA.19, handcuffed him, ROA.16, “aggressively and violently” pulled him
   from his home, ROA.19, “slammed” him against the hood of the patrol car,
   ROA.19, and “forced” him into the back of the car. ROA.19.
          After a short period of time detained in the patrol car, Walls (a senior
   citizen) suffered a heart attack and stopped breathing. The deputies pulled
   him from the patrol car and administered CPR. Walls died at the scene.
                                         B.
          Walls’s two surviving sons (hereinafter “plaintiffs”) filed a lawsuit in
   Louisiana state court against Chapman, Caddo Parish Sheriff Stephen Prator,
   and the Caddo Parish Sheriff’s Office. They asserted claims pursuant to 42
   U.S.C. § 1983 and Louisiana state law. The plaintiffs asked for money
   damages and costs.
          The defendants removed the lawsuit to federal court and moved to
   dismiss several of the claims under Rule 12(b)(6). As relevant to this appeal,
   Chapman invoked qualified immunity as a defense to the § 1983 excessive
   force claim. The district court denied Chapman’s qualified immunity
   defense, and Chapman timely appealed. Our review is de novo. See Club Retro,
   L.L.C., 568 F.3d at 194.
                                        II.
          Plaintiffs seek money damages from a law enforcement officer. To
   win, they must overcome qualified immunity. That means they must show
   (1) that Chapman violated Walls’s constitutional rights and (2) that the right
   at issue was “clearly established” at the time of the alleged misconduct. See
   Salazar v. Molina, 37 F.4th 278, 281 (5th Cir. 2022) (citation omitted).

                                         3
Case: 23-30253      Document: 00516992270           Page: 4     Date Filed: 12/06/2023

                                     No. 23-30253

   Deputy Chapman challenges only the second requirement—clearly
   established law. So that is all we address.
          Qualified immunity “protects all but the plainly incompetent or those
   who knowingly violate the law.” District of Columbia v. Wesby, 583 U.S. 48,
   63 (2018) (quotation omitted). It “shields officers from civil liability so long
   as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or
   constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” City
   of Tahlequah v. Bond, 595 U.S. 9, 12 (2021) (per curiam) (quotation omitted).
   “[T]o show a violation of clearly established law, [the plaintiff] must identify
   a case that put [the officer] on notice that his specific conduct was unlawful.”
   Rivas-Villegas v. Cortesluna, 595 U.S. 1, 6 (2021) (per curiam).
          Courts must be careful “not to define clearly established law at too
   high a level of generality.” City of Tahlequah, 595 U.S. at 12 (quotation
   omitted). “[S]pecificity is especially important in the Fourth Amendment
   context . . . .” Rivas-Villegas, 595 U.S. at 6 (quotation omitted). In particular,
   “excessive force is an area of the law in which the result depends very much
   on the facts of each case, and thus police officers are entitled to qualified
   immunity unless existing precedent squarely governs the specific facts at
   issue.” Kisela v. Hughes, 138 S. Ct. 1148, 1153 (2018) (per curiam) (citation
   and quotation omitted).
          The Supreme Court has never said that circuit precedent is sufficient
   to put officers on notice of their constitutional obligations. See Wesby, 583
   U.S. at 66 n.8 (“We have not yet decided what precedents—other than our
   own—qualify as controlling authority for purposes of qualified immunity.”);
   see also Boyd v. McNamara, 74 F.4th 662, 672 (5th Cir. 2023) (Oldham, J.,
   concurring in part and dissenting in part). But our court has repeatedly said
   that circuit precedent can clearly establish the law. See, e.g., Boyd, 74 F.4th at
   670–71 (majority op.).

                                           4
Case: 23-30253        Document: 00516992270        Page: 5   Date Filed: 12/06/2023

                                    No. 23-30253

          Assuming our precedent can clearly establish the law, two of our cases
   are relevant here. See Bush v. Strain, 513 F.3d 492 (5th Cir. 2008); Deville v.
   Marcantel, 567 F.3d 156 (5th Cir. 2009). In Bush, we denied qualified
   immunity where the officer slammed a compliant arrestee’s face into the
   window of a nearby car, injuring her jaw and teeth. See 513 F.3d at 500–02.
   And in Deville, we denied qualified immunity where the officer pulled over a
   woman for speeding, ordered her out of the car, and then (when she did not
   comply) broke the vehicle’s window, pulled the woman out, and caused her
   multiple injuries (including “contusions to both wrists, neuropathy of her
   hands, right shoulder strain, left shoulder bruising (with hand prints), and
   multiple cuts caused by broken glass”). See 567 F.3d at 167–69.
          Under Bush and Deville, the district court did not err. On the well-
   pleaded facts of this case, Walls was not suspected of any crime, posed no
   immediate threat to the safety of the deputies or others, and made no attempt
   to actively resist arrest or evade arrest by flight. Chapman violently seized
   Walls only because Chapman mistakenly thought Walls was videotaping the
   officers. There was no evidence that Chapman’s actions were compelled by
   necessity and exigency. Walls was injured in the arrest and then died.
   Assuming the truth of the facts as pleaded, Chapman violated clearly
   established law.
          AFFIRMED.

                                         5