994 F.3d 717
5th Cir.2021Background
- Deputy Brandon Doege, an off-duty Bexar County deputy in uniform driving his personal vehicle with police-style lights, encountered Inessa Batyukova stopped in a travel lane late at night on a divided highway.
- Doege activated his lights, called 911 to report the stopped vehicle, ordered Batyukova to show her hands and to get down; she repeatedly ignored commands, shouted expletives, and made an obscene gesture.
- Batyukova walked toward Doege, he reversed to create distance, exited his vehicle, drew his weapon, and observed her reach a hand behind her back toward her waistband; her hand then disappeared from view.
- Doege fired five shots, striking Batyukova; he immediately reported shots fired and requested assistance. EMS arrived about 15 minutes later; a Medina County deputy tended to her before EMS.
- During discovery, many facts were deemed admitted because Batyukova failed to respond timely to requests for admission; the district court granted summary judgment to Doege on qualified immunity grounds, and Batyukova appealed.
- The Fifth Circuit affirmed: it held that (1) clearly established law did not make Doege’s use of deadly force unconstitutional under these facts, (2) the First Amendment retaliation claim failed for lack of but-for causation, and (3) the deliberate-indifference medical-care claim failed for lack of deliberate indifference or showing that any delay caused substantial harm.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fourth Amendment excessive force (deadly force/qualified immunity) | Doege used objectively unreasonable, deadly force against a non-criminal, noncompliant person who posed little or no threat. | Doege reasonably believed Batyukova was reaching for a weapon toward her waistband and thus posed an imminent threat; qualified immunity applies. | Affirmed: plaintiff failed to identify clearly established precedent that would have put every reasonable officer on notice that shooting under these circumstances was unconstitutional. |
| First Amendment retaliation | Batyukova was shot in retaliation for protected speech (expletives and the middle finger). | Doege shot because he feared for his life based on her reaching toward her waistband (and undisputedly did not shoot in response to the expletives). | Affirmed: no but-for causation shown; record shows the shooting responded to the reach, not the protected speech. |
| Fourteenth Amendment deliberate indifference to medical needs | Doege failed to render or ensure timely medical care after shooting, causing substantial harm. | Doege immediately called for help, reported the injury, did not ignore her, and other officers/EMS rendered care; any delay did not cause substantial harm. | Affirmed: Doege had subjective knowledge but did not act with deliberate indifference, and plaintiff did not show delay produced substantial harm. |
Key Cases Cited
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (establishes Fourth Amendment ‘‘objective reasonableness’’ standard for use of force)
- Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (deadly force permissible only when officer has probable cause to believe suspect poses serious threat)
- Plumhoff v. Rickard, 572 U.S. 765 (reasonableness inquiry and qualified immunity in high-speed-pursuit/deadly-force context)
- Mullenix v. Luna, 577 U.S. 7 (clearly established prong requires that officers be on notice their conduct was unlawful)
- Kisela v. Hughes, 138 S. Ct. 1148 (officers entitled to qualified immunity unless precedent ‘‘squarely governs’’ facts)
- Salazar-Limon v. City of Houston, 826 F.3d 272 (5th Cir.) (deadly force reasonable where officer perceived sudden reach toward waistband)
- Manis v. Lawson, 585 F.3d 839 (5th Cir.) (deadly force reasonable when person reached under vehicle seat appearing to retrieve object that could be a weapon)
- Amador v. Vasquez, 961 F.3d 721 (5th Cir.) (killing of motionless, distant knife-wielding suspect found clearly unconstitutional because no immediate threat)
- Darden v. City of Fort Worth, 880 F.3d 722 (5th Cir.) (clearly established that violently assaulting a nonresisting, compliant suspect is excessive force)
- Cole v. Carson, 935 F.3d 444 (5th Cir. en banc) (shooting a nonthreatening, armed suicidal teen who posed no immediate risk and was feasibly warnable was unconstitutional)
- Baker v. Putnal, 75 F.3d 190 (5th Cir.) (shooting a possibly unthreatening person in chaotic circumstances without warning raised Fourth Amendment concerns)
- Nieves v. Bartlett, 139 S. Ct. 1715 (First Amendment retaliation requires but-for causation between protected speech and adverse action)
- Mason v. Lafayette City-Par., 806 F.3d 268 (5th Cir.) (no deliberate indifference where officer called for aid and others rendered treatment)
- Ryburn v. Huff, 565 U.S. 469 (officer assessments in tense, rapidly evolving situations are given deference)