Fernando Narro v. E. Edwards, 18-40912

Background

Fernando S. Narro, a pretrial detainee in Brazoria County, sued five detention officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming excessive force during a cell transfer on Sept. 26, 2016.
Officers say Narro repeatedly refused orders to move, sat up, tensed, raised clenched fists, thrashed, kicked, and struck an officer; Duminski struck Narro once to avoid being hit; Narro was handcuffed, pulled to the ground, moved to a second cell, and treated by a nurse for a cut.
Narro submitted an unverified complaint, an unsworn inmate grievance, and low-quality photos; defendants submitted multiple affidavits and two videos (one with audio) showing a struggle and subsequent restraint/treatment.
The district court granted summary judgment for the officers based on qualified immunity, finding Narro failed to raise a genuine factual dispute that the force was objectively unreasonable.
The Fifth Circuit affirmed: Narro offered no competent, sworn evidence to rebut the officers’ version; video evidence undermined parts of Narro’s account and there was no clearly established law putting officers on notice their conduct was unlawful.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether defendants used excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment	Narro: officers assaulted him while he was in bed, under mattress cover, not a threat, causing cuts, bruises, and ongoing injuries	Officers: Narro resisted, threatened, kicked, and struck; force used to regain control and prevent assault	Court: No genuine dispute supported by competent evidence; officers entitled to judgment as matter of law
Whether plaintiff produced competent evidence to defeat summary judgment	Narro relied on his unverified complaint, unsworn grievance, and inmate statement	Defendants produced sworn affidavits and video footage; argued plaintiff’s evidence is inadmissible/insufficient	Court: Narro failed Rule 56(e) burdens; unsworn statements cannot create a genuine issue
Whether video evidence blatantly contradicts plaintiff’s version so his account cannot be credited	Narro argued officers’ affidavits are false and more weight should be given to his account	Defendants pointed to videos that contradict Narro’s demeanor and conduct as alleged	Court: Video discredits parts of Narro’s account; where video exists plaintiff cannot rely on blatantly contradicted assertions
Whether qualified immunity shields officers	Narro: force was malicious and not justified; rights were clearly established	Defendants: conduct was objectively reasonable in light of resistance and threat; no clearly established precedent showing their conduct was unlawful	Court: Qualified immunity applies; no clearly established law put officers on notice their use of force was unconstitutional

Key Cases Cited

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burden and evidence requirements)
Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1 (Eighth Amendment excessive-force inquiry and factors)
Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (qualified immunity requires clearly established law)
Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (qualified immunity framework; courts may consider prongs in any order)
District of Columbia v. Wesby, 138 S. Ct. 577 (burden to show violation and clearly established law under qualified immunity)
Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (video evidence may blatantly contradict plaintiff’s account precluding reliance on that account)
Hanks v. Rogers, 853 F.3d 738 (plaintiff’s version not accepted when blatantly contradicted by video)
Tarver v. City of Edna, 410 F.3d 745 (elements plaintiff must prove for excessive-force claim)
Poole v. City of Shreveport, 691 F.3d 624 (evaluate officer’s use of force from perspective of reasonable officer on scene)
Griggs v. Brewer, 841 F.3d 308 (officer entitled to qualified immunity for punching resisting subject to regain control)
Brown v. Callahan, 623 F.3d 249 (summary judgment burden and drawing inferences in favor of nonmovant under qualified immunity)