Eunice Winzer v. Kaufman County, 916 F.3d 464

Background

On April 27, 2013, dispatch reported an armed, agitated black male in a brown shirt had fired at officers; multiple Kaufman County officers responded and set up a defensive perimeter.
Officers initially encountered a suspect who allegedly fired one shot; they lost sight of that person and repeatedly stated the shooter wore a brown shirt.
Minutes later Gabriel Winzer, a youth on a bicycle wearing a blue jacket, rode into view ~100+ yards away; officers shouted commands and within seconds fired 17 rounds; Gabriel was struck, subdued, tased, and later pronounced dead.
Plaintiffs (Winzer family) sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for excessive force and municipal liability; some officers were added later to the pleadings.
The district court granted summary judgment for individual officers (statute of limitations and qualified immunity) and for Kaufman County; plaintiffs appealed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether claims against Cuellar and Huddleston relate back to avoid Texas two-year limitations	Relation-back under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c) because original complaints named "unknown officers" and plaintiffs promptly identified defendants	Relation back unavailable: John Doe allegations and delay in identification are not a "mistake concerning identity" under Jacobsen	Affirmed: claims against Cuellar and Huddleston are time-barred (no Rule 15(c) relation back)
Whether district court abused discretion by denying leave to add Hinojosa and Wheeler	Addition was timely in substance; discovery revealed identities and plaintiffs sought amendment as soon as they could	Denial proper because claims would be futile—barred by limitations and Rule 15(c) does not salvage late additions	Affirmed: denial of leave to amend was not an abuse of discretion (futile due to limitations)
Whether Hinds entitled to qualified immunity for use of deadly force	Evidence (affidavit/video) raises genuine fact disputes: Gabriel was on bike, unarmed, hands on handlebars, in blue jacket; a jury could find force unreasonable; affidavit should not have been excluded as a sham	Officers assert they reasonably believed Gabriel was the armed suspect who had just fired at them; split-second decision in dangerous circumstances; qualified immunity applies	Reversed in part: district court abused discretion in applying sham-affidavit rule; viewing facts in plaintiffs' favor creates genuine issues whether Hinds violated Fourth Amendment; but right was not clearly established, so qualified immunity not defeated on that prong
Whether Kaufman County entitled to summary judgment on municipal liability	County may be liable if officers violated clearly established rights and violation resulted from county policy or training; summary judgment premature given factual disputes about constitutional violation	County argued no constitutional violation by officers, so no municipal liability	Reversed as to the county: grant of summary judgment was premature and remanded for reconsideration given disputes about a constitutional violation

Key Cases Cited

Whitt v. Stephens Cnty., 529 F.3d 278 (5th Cir. 2008) (limitations period and relation-back principles for § 1983 suits)
Jacobsen v. Osborne, 133 F.3d 315 (5th Cir. 1998) (Rule 15(c) requires a mistake concerning identity; mere failure to identify is not a mistake)
Tolan v. Cotton, 134 S. Ct. 1861 (2014) (on summary judgment courts must view evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant and not resolve credibility disputes)
Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (Fourth Amendment reasonableness test for use of force)
Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985) (deadly force permissible only when officer has probable cause to believe suspect poses a serious threat)
Brosseau v. Haugen, 543 U.S. 194 (2004) (application of Garner in qualified immunity context)
Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (discretion to address either prong of qualified immunity test)
White v. Pauly, 137 S. Ct. 548 (2017) (focus on what was knowable to officer; requirement to define clearly established law with specificity)
Lytle v. Bexar Cnty., 560 F.3d 404 (5th Cir. 2009) (assessing reasonableness of force in residential settings)
Hicks-Fields v. Harris Cty., Texas, 860 F.3d 803 (5th Cir. 2017) (standards for establishing municipal liability under § 1983)