David Blair v. City of Dallas
666 F. App'x 337
5th Cir.2016Background
- On Oct. 2, 2013, Dallas officers Aquino and Cantu shone a spotlight on David Blair outside his apartment; Blair told them to stop, then went back inside.
- Officers exited their patrol car with weapons drawn, approached the apartment complex, and fired multiple shots when Blair opened his screen door holding a flashlight with a pistol‑style handle; Blair was not hit.
- Blair’s girlfriend Cynthia Oliver and their child D.O. were inside; they say they feared for their lives and could not leave while shots were fired.
- Plaintiffs sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for excessive force (Blair), wrongful seizure (Oliver and D.O.), and Monell municipal liability against the City of Dallas for inadequate training/policies.
- District court granted officers qualified immunity (partial summary judgment) and dismissed the Monell claims; plaintiffs appealed.
- The Fifth Circuit affirmed, finding no genuine material fact created by plaintiffs’ expert affidavit and that any right to relief for the bystanders was not clearly established.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Excessive force (Blair) | Officers used objectively unreasonable deadly force when they shot at Blair as he opened his door holding a flashlight | Officers reasonably believed they were in danger and their use of force was justified; qualified immunity applies | Affirmed: no genuine dispute of material fact sufficient to overcome qualified immunity; expert affidavit insufficient to create issue about officers’ perceived danger |
| Wrongful seizure (Oliver & D.O.) | Oliver and D.O. were unlawfully seized because shots prevented them from leaving the apartment | Officers did not intentionally seize Oliver and D.O.; any restraint was an unintended consequence of force directed at Blair | Affirmed: no evidence officers intentionally applied force to Oliver or D.O.; any Fourth Amendment seizure was not clearly established |
| Monell municipal liability (City of Dallas) | City liable for failing to train and for customs tolerating unconstitutional policing | City not liable absent an underlying constitutional violation by officers | Affirmed: Monell claims fail because underlying constitutional violations were not established |
Key Cases Cited
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (public officials immune from suit unless they violated clearly established rights)
- Tolan v. Cotton, 134 S. Ct. 1861 (summary judgment view facts in light most favorable to nonmovant)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (two‑prong qualified immunity framework)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (objective reasonableness standard under Fourth Amendment)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (excessive force analyzed under Fourth Amendment objective reasonableness)
- City & County of San Francisco v. Sheehan, 135 S. Ct. 1765 (expert reports cannot avoid qualified immunity where reasonable officer could have believed conduct justified)
- Ashcroft v. al‑Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (right must be clearly established beyond debate)
- Brower v. County of Inyo, 489 U.S. 593 (seizure requires intentional governmental termination of movement)
- Plumhoff v. Rickard, 134 S. Ct. 2012 (clarifies clearly established inquiry in use‑of‑force context)
- City of Los Angeles v. Heller, 475 U.S. 796 (municipal liability requires underlying constitutional violation)