Court Opinion

ID: 9939514
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-10 01:00:38.152778+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:41:21.740282
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-40755         Document: 00517061560             Page: 1      Date Filed: 02/09/2024

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

                                                                                        FILED
                                       No. 22-40755                               February 9, 2024
                                      ____________                                    Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                           Clerk
   Blaze Hicks,

                                                                       Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Kerry Perry, Jailor,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                           for the Eastern District of Texas
                                USDC No. 9:19-CV-212
                      ______________________________

   Before Elrod, Willett, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          Blaze Hicks, a Texas prisoner, filed a lawsuit pursuant to
   42 U.S.C. § 1983 against several defendants, including Kerry Perry, for
   violations of his constitutional rights while he was a pretrial detainee in 2019.1
   Hicks alleged that Perry, a jailer at the Tyler County Jail, used excessive force

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
          1
             Perry is the only remaining defendant in the suit. The other defendants were
   either dismissed without prejudice or were granted summary judgment.
Case: 22-40755        Document: 00517061560              Page: 2      Date Filed: 02/09/2024

                                         No. 22-40755

   against him without provocation, resulting in a head injury.2 Proceeding
   before a magistrate judge, Perry moved for summary judgment, asserting,
   inter alia, that he was entitled to qualified immunity. The magistrate judge
   observed that Perry’s version of events was “vastly different” from Hicks’s.
   Perry alleges that he acted to subdue Hicks because Hicks “became agitated
   and started yelling” at his visiting grandparents and “slammed the receiver
   of the telephone in the visitation area, leapt from his seat, punched a metal
   door, and punched a concrete wall.” The magistrate judge found that record
   evidence raised a “genuine issue of material fact regarding the circumstances
   of the use of force.” Because “[a]t the summary judgment stage, the court
   may not make credibility determinations and must accept [Hicks’s] version
   of the facts as true,” the magistrate judge concluded that “Perry is not
   entitled to qualified immunity at this stage.” Accordingly, it denied Perry’s
   motion for summary judgment on the excessive force claim.
           Perry filed an interlocutory appeal challenging the denial of summary
   judgment based on qualified immunity. The denial of a motion for summary
   judgment based on qualified immunity is a collateral order capable of
   immediate review. Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 530 (1985). However, our
   jurisdiction to review the denial is “significantly limited,” extending only to
   questions of law. Kinney v. Weaver, 367 F.3d 337, 346 (5th Cir. 2004)
   (en banc). When a district court denies an official’s summary judgment
   motion based on qualified immunity, “the district court can be thought of as

           _____________________
           2
              We accept as competent summary judgment evidence factual assertions made in
   a pro se prisoner’s verified complaint under penalty of perjury because the facts are based
   on the prisoner’s personal knowledge. See Hart v. Hairston, 343 F.3d 762, 765 (5th Cir.
   2003) (“On summary judgment, factual allegations set forth in a verified complaint may be
   treated the same as when they are contained in an affidavit.”); see also
   Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(4) (“An affidavit or declaration used to support or oppose a
   motion must be made on personal knowledge . . . .”).

                                               2
Case: 22-40755      Document: 00517061560           Page: 3   Date Filed: 02/09/2024

                                     No. 22-40755

   making two distinct determinations”—that is, the district court first
   “decides that a certain course of conduct would, as a matter of law, be
   objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law. Second, the court
   decides that a genuine issue of fact exists regarding whether the defendant(s)
   did, in fact, engage in such conduct.” Ibid. We “lack jurisdiction to review
   conclusions of the second type on interlocutory appeal.” Ibid. However, we
   do have “jurisdiction to the review the first type of determination, the purely
   legal question whether a given course of conduct would be objectively
   unreasonable in light of clearly established law.” Id. at 347.
          On appeal, Perry argues that the use of force was reasonable and
   necessary because Hicks threatened the safety and security of the jail when
   he created a disturbance in the visitation room, refused to obey an order to
   end the visit, and then charged at and wrestled with Perry. Perry’s arguments
   are directed at the truth of Hicks’s factual allegations, who claimed he merely
   “asked why” his visitation with his grandparents was cut short. By arguing
   that the force was justified in this case, Perry is essentially challenging the
   magistrate judge’s determination that genuine issues of material fact exist
   regarding exactly what took place in the visitation room. “This is precisely
   the type of question that the court lacks jurisdiction to entertain in this
   interlocutory appeal.” Chatman v. Miles, 518 F. App’x 292, 294 (5th Cir.
   2013) (per curiam); see also Kinney, 367 F.3d at 346. Accordingly, we dismiss
   the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
                                                                    DISMISSED.

                                          3