Arcade Comeaux, Jr. v. Darrell Sutton, 496 F. App'x 368

Comeaux, a Texas prisoner, appeals a district court ruling dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit with prejudice after the court granted summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds.
Comeaux alleges excessive force by Sutton, Biscamp, and Jenkins during a February 11, 2002 transfer from his cell to a van for a court hearing, and failure-to-protect by Hutchinson, McComb, and Simmons.
The district court did not construe all facts in the light most favorable to Comeaux and did not resolve genuine material facts.
The court on remand reviewed the Hudson factors but failed to view the record in Comeaux’s favor, leading to this court reversing the summary judgment and remanding for trial.
The panel held that genuine issues of material fact remain as to the need for and amount of force, as well as the propriety of the defendants’ conduct, warranting reversal and remand.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether qualified immunity is proper given disputed facts	Comeaux argues facts show excessive force and failure to protect	Defendants contend no clearly established violation and proper use of force	Reversed for further proceedings due to disputed facts
Whether first Hudson factor supports de minimis injury	Comeaux’s injuries are nontrivial despite minor appearance	Injuries can be non-de minimis irrespective of physical severity	Disputed; issue remains for trial (not decided at this stage)
Whether second Hudson factor (need for force) is resolved by Scott v. Harris in the record	Comeaux disputes provocation/resistance; videotape incomplete	Officers’ account supports need for force	Should be resolved in Comeaux’s favor on remand; Scott does not resolve all facts here
Whether third Hudson factor (relationship of need to force) favors defendants	Comeaux denies resistance and alleges retaliation	Force applied to restrain a resistant inmate was appropriate	Genuine issues of material fact remain; not conclusively in favor of defendants
Whether fourth/fifth Hudson factors support summary judgment on failure-to-protect	Officers had time to intervene; evidence of retaliation	No credible basis to challenge their actions during transport	District court erred; material facts remain; reversal and remand proper

Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1 (U.S. (1992)) (Five-factor test for excessive force)
Wilkins v. Gaddy, 130 S. Ct. 1175 (S. Ct. (2010)) (core inquiry: good-faith correction vs. malicious harm)
Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312 (U.S. (1986)) (discusses proportionality of force and discipline)
Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (U.S. (2007)) (video evidence may rebut opposing account in summary judgment)
Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (U.S. (2009)) (two-prong qualified-immunity analysis; court discretion)
Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (U.S. (2001)) (two-step analysis for qualified immunity (abrogated in part by Pearson))
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. (1986)) (summary judgment standard: no credibility determinations; view evidence in light favorable to nonmovant)
Murray v. Earle, 405 F.3d 278 (5th Cir. 2005) (view all facts in light most favorable to nonmovant)
Reaves v. Brokerage Co., 336 F.3d 410 (5th Cir. 2003) (summary-judgment standard in Fifth Circuit)
Barnes v. Johnson, 204 F. App’x 377 (5th Cir. 2006) (injuries not per se de minimis in excessive-force)
Tillis v. Garcia, 99 F.3d 1135 (5th Cir. 1996) (unpublished; cautions against resolving disputes on summary judgment when fact issues exist)