Archie Johnson v. City of Bastrop
17-30393
| 5th Cir. | Dec 1, 2017Background
- Archie Johnson arrived at a Spirit-store parking lot after a car accident and argued with a driver (Courson); Officer Maximilian Hollins told Johnson to leave when Johnson continued to antagonize a witness.
- Hollins grabbed Johnson, put his arm behind his back, handcuffed him for under 20 seconds, then released him; Johnson was not criminally charged.
- Johnson, proceeding pro se, sued Hollins and the City under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for false arrest, First Amendment retaliation, and excessive force, plus related state-law claims.
- The district court granted summary judgment to Hollins on excessive force and state-law claims and against the City; false arrest and retaliation claims proceeded to jury trial.
- A jury found probable cause for the arrest (disturbing the peace under La. Stat. Ann. § 14:103(A)); the district court denied JMOL for Johnson and entered judgment for Hollins.
- Johnson later moved for contempt and sanctions alleging witness intimidation, perjury, and suppressed evidence; the district court denied relief and the Fifth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| False arrest (probable cause) | Johnson argues no probable cause existed to arrest him for disturbing the peace. | Hollins argues facts known at arrest supported probable cause because Johnson continued to antagonize a witness and impeded the officer's duties. | Jury verdict and court affirmed: sufficient probable cause existed. |
| First Amendment retaliation | Johnson contends arrest was motivated by his protected speech. | Hollins contends probable cause for disturbing the peace defeats a retaliation claim. | Held for Hollins: probable cause forecloses the retaliation claim. |
| Excessive force (handcuffing) | Johnson alleges the arm maneuver caused a preexisting rotator-cuff injury requiring surgery, constituting excessive force. | Hollins contends handcuffing was a minimal, common detention technique and objectively reasonable; no notice of special vulnerability. | Summary judgment for Hollins affirmed: force was de minimis and objectively reasonable; no genuine fact issue. |
| Contempt / sanctions / discovery misconduct | Johnson alleges intimidation, perjury conspiracy, and concealment of video; seeks Rule 60(b)(3) relief. | Hollins and counsel assert no court-order violations, evidence shows video was disclosed and shown at trial, and no proof of perjury conspiracy. | Denial of contempt/sanctions and Rule 60(b)(3) relief affirmed: district court did not abuse discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- EEOC v. Boh Bros. Constr. Co., 731 F.3d 444 (5th Cir. 2013) (standard of review for JMOL after jury verdict)
- Haggerty v. Tex. S. Univ., 391 F.3d 653 (5th Cir. 2004) (probable cause required to sustain false arrest claim)
- Mesa v. Prejean, 543 F.3d 264 (5th Cir. 2008) (probable cause defeats First Amendment retaliation claim)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (objective-reasonableness Graham factors for excessive force)
- Bush v. Strain, 513 F.3d 492 (5th Cir. 2008) (elements of an excessive-force claim)
- Freeman v. Gore, 483 F.3d 404 (5th Cir. 2007) (handcuffing can be de minimis force)