Byrd v. Cornelius, 52 F.4th 265

Background

On Nov. 14, 2017, Malea Byrd, a Madisonville High School student, was removed and arrested at a school basketball game after an altercation involving an assistant principal and two school officers (Cornelius and Sweetin).
Byrd alleges officers used excessive force (shirt ripped, thrown to ground, knee/arm pressure, broken cell phone) and suffered shoulder/elbow trauma, bruising, and lacerations; officers allege Byrd resisted, struck an officer, and kicked.
A ~15‑second, low‑quality security/cell‑phone video shows part of the encounter (Byrd appearing to swat at an officer and resist) but does not show the full arrest or what occurred afterward.
The magistrate judge found genuine disputes of material fact (giving weight to Byrd’s declaration and finding the video inconclusive) and recommended denying summary judgment on qualified immunity; the district court adopted that recommendation.
Officers filed an interlocutory appeal challenging denial of qualified immunity. The Fifth Circuit reviewed whether the factual disputes were material (not their genuineness) and concluded the video did not conclusively resolve the disputes; the court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the security video conclusively refutes Byrd’s sworn account so the court can resolve factual disputes on appeal	Byrd: video is low quality and does not show the arrest or post‑restraint events; her declaration creates genuine disputes	Officers: video shows Byrd striking/kicking and thus conclusively contradicts Byrd, allowing this court to resolve facts	Video is inconclusive on material points; appellate review cannot resolve genuineness of factual disputes on interlocutory qualified immunity appeal
Whether officers violated clearly established Fourth Amendment law by using excessive force	Byrd: taking her allegations as true, force was excessive — she was non‑criminal, not a threat, and (at least at times) non‑resisting	Officers: any force was reasonable to subdue a resisting suspect; no controlling precedent made their conduct clearly unlawful	On the district‑court‑view of facts, the alleged conduct would violate clearly established law (court relied on Curran logic)
Whether Byrd’s injuries are de minimis and thus noncognizable	Byrd: alleged shoulder/elbow trauma, bruising, lacerations, hospital treatment — more than de minimis	Officers: injuries were minimal and consistent with lawful control	Alleged injuries meet the de minimis threshold if force was objectively unreasonable; alleged injuries suffice here
Whether qualified immunity should be resolved now by this court	Officers: ask reversal and immunity based on video and law	Byrd: factual disputes preclude summary judgment; appeal improper to resolve those disputes	Because factual disputes remain material and the video does not conclusively resolve them, appellate jurisdiction is limited and the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction

Key Cases Cited

Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (establishes objective‑reasonableness test for excessive force)
Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (two‑step qualified immunity framework)
Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (district/circuit courts may choose order of qualified‑immunity prongs)
Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (video evidence can, in rare cases, conclusively resolve factual disputes)
Curran v. Aleshire, 800 F.3d 656 (5th Cir. 2015) (similar facts; video inconclusive and factual disputes material to excessive‑force claim)
Kinney v. Weaver, 367 F.3d 337 (5th Cir. 2004) (interlocutory review of denial of qualified immunity limited to legal issues/materiality of facts)
Alexander v. City of Round Rock, 854 F.3d 298 (force amount correlates with injury; de minimis‑injury discussion)
Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (qualified immunity protects officials unless rights were clearly established)
Ashcroft v. al‑Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (clearly established law requires reasonable warning to officials)