Annie Sam v. Donald Thompson
887 F.3d 710
5th Cir.2018Background
- On Feb. 10, 2015, 16‑year‑old Jamarcus Sam and friends left an Opelousas Walmart after one friend shoplifted; police were dispatched about people running.
- Officer Shone Chase Richard encountered the group; Sam fled briefly, then lay face down with hands on his head and did not resist.
- Sam alleges Richard slapped him, kneed his hip, handcuffed him, shoved him against a patrol car, and transported him in the cruiser; Richard denies force beyond handcuffing.
- Walmart security later identified Sam’s companion (Stag) as the shoplifter; Sam remained handcuffed in the patrol car until transported to the station and then released to his mother.
- Sam sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for excessive force and unlawful detention, plus related state claims; district court granted summary judgment for defendants on federal claims and dismissed state claims.
- The Fifth Circuit reviews summary judgment de novo, viewed in the light most favorable to Sam.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Excessive force: whether force used (slap, knee, shove) violated the Fourth Amendment | Sam: Force was applied after he was compliant (lying face down, hands on head); his bleeding and pain suffice as injury to support a claim | Richard: Any force was minimal/de minimis and no constitutional violation; qualified immunity applies | VACATED summary judgment for Richard on excessive force — factual dispute on force and injuries precludes summary judgment; Sam’s minor injuries can be cognizable when force is unreasonable (survives at this stage) |
| Unjustified detention/arrest: whether detention after ID constituted an arrest without probable cause | Sam: Detention between ID and station was unlawful and unsupported by probable cause | Richard: Even if arrest, probable cause existed (objective basis) — e.g., running from Walmart, location implicating crossing I‑49 | AFFIRMED summary judgment for Richard on detention — undisputed facts provided objective probable cause (violation of La. Stat. § 32:216) |
| Municipal and insurer liability / state‑law claims | Sam: City may be liable if officer violated rights; state claims should proceed if federal claims survive | City: No underlying constitutional violation; summary judgment proper; district court rightly dismissed state claims when federal claims resolved | VACATED summary judgment re: City and insurer; VACATED dismissal of state claims — because excessive force claim survives, municipal liability and state claims remanded for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Alexander v. City of Round Rock, 854 F.3d 298 (5th Cir. 2017) (minor injuries can be cognizable where force was objectively unreasonable)
- Windham v. Harris County, 875 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2017) (excessive force elements)
- Bush v. Strain, 513 F.3d 492 (5th Cir. 2008) (use of force on nonresisting suspect can be excessive)
- Darden v. City of Ft. Worth, 880 F.3d 722 (5th Cir. 2018) (denial of qualified immunity where force was unreasonable)
- Carroll v. Ellington, 800 F.3d 154 (5th Cir. 2015) (similar excessive‑force precedent)
- Devenpeck v. Alford, 543 U.S. 146 (2004) (probable cause test is objective; officer’s subjective intent irrelevant)
- District of Columbia v. Wesby, 138 S. Ct. 577 (2018) (officer entitled to qualified immunity if he reasonably but mistakenly concluded probable cause existed)
- Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103 (1975) (warrantless arrests require probable cause)
- Atwater v. City of Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318 (2001) (arrest may be lawful for a misdemeanor)
- Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1 (1992) (serious‑injury standard overruled; focus on reasonableness of force)