Colleen Curran v. Phillip Aleshire
800 F.3d 656
5th Cir.2015Background
- On Sept. 24, 2008, 15-year-old April Curran used a cell phone on school grounds in violation of policy; teacher Leonard Abram summoned SRO Deputy Phillip Aleshire.
- Confrontation lasted ~10 minutes; parties dispute key facts: Curran says Aleshire yanked her ID, jerked her, then threw and handcuffed her; Aleshire and Abram say Curran struck Aleshire and they subdued her against a wall.
- Curran was handcuffed, escorted to the disciplinarian’s office, and later photographed and treated for bruising; she was subsequently convicted in juvenile court of battery of an officer (conviction final).
- Curran sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and parallel state tort claims for excessive force; district court granted summary judgment on most claims but denied summary judgment to Aleshire on (1) § 1983 excessive-force claims, (2) parallel state claims, and (3) punitive damages.
- District court found genuine disputed facts material to qualified immunity: particularly whether (a) the first use of force was temporally distinct from Curran’s alleged battery/resistance, and (b) the second use of force (handcuffed escort) was an egregious, gratuitous slam. Video/still evidence was inconclusive.
- Fifth Circuit held it lacked jurisdiction to review the genuineness of the factual disputes on interlocutory qualified-immunity appeal and dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, finding the disputes material to the immunity defense.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether disputed facts precluding summary judgment are immaterial to qualified immunity for the first use of force | Curran: she had stopped resisting before Aleshire slammed her head into a wall, so force was excessive | Aleshire: any force was reasonable as a split-second response to being battered; conviction shows she struck him | Disputed temporal facts are material; cannot resolve on interlocutory appeal — district court’s denial stands and qualified immunity not resolved here |
| Whether video/stills refute Curran’s account of the second use of force (handcuffed escort) | Curran: while handcuffed and subdued she was gratuitously slammed into a wall, so excessive force | Aleshire: surveillance photos/video show Curran took a long stride as if to escape, justifying the shove | Video/stills are inconclusive and do not blatantly contradict Curran; factual dispute is material and precludes summary judgment on qualified immunity |
| Whether Heck bars Curran’s § 1983 excessive-force claims because of her battery conviction | Curran: her conviction doesn’t necessarily preclude civil claims when excessive force claim is temporally/conceptually distinct | Aleshire: conviction undermines excessive-force suit | District court correctly treated the conviction as not dispositive where factual disputes about timing exist; issue not properly before this court on interlocutory appeal |
| Whether this court can review the genuineness of factual disputes on interlocutory qualified-immunity appeal | N/A | Aleshire sought review of factual findings supporting denial of qualified immunity | Fifth Circuit: limited to reviewing materiality of disputes, not their genuineness; thus it lacked jurisdiction to resolve the factual disputes and dismissed the appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (conviction bars § 1983 claim only if success would imply invalidity of conviction)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (objective-reasonableness Fourth Amendment test for force)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (video that blatantly contradicts plaintiff may be credited over plaintiff’s account)
- Tolan v. Cotton, 134 S. Ct. 1861 (courts must not resolve genuinely disputed facts in qualified-immunity review)
- Bush v. Strain, 513 F.3d 492 (resolving excess-force claims may turn on whether force was temporally distinct from resistance)
- Manis v. Lawson, 585 F.3d 839 (qualified immunity affirmed where undisputed facts justified deadly force)
- Poole v. City of Shreveport, 691 F.3d 624 (officers have latitude in rapidly evolving, resisting-suspect situations)