900 F.3d 655
5th Cir.2018Background
- At ~4:05 a.m. officers McGregor and Vadzemnieks encountered Gregory Samples, a 50-year-old, slight, half-naked man wandering and shivering in a gated neighborhood; officers believed he was intoxicated or drug-affected.
- Samples was unarmed, carrying his dentures, and repeatedly refused officers’ requests to enter the patrol car; there is dispute whether commands were given or only requests and whether Samples assumed a fighting stance.
- Vadzemnieks deployed his taser once (about five seconds), striking Samples in the arm and leg; Samples fell backward and later was found with a fractured skull and acute subdural hematoma, requiring emergency brain surgery.
- EMS was called; dash-cam footage of the taser deployment does not exist; available video begins after deployment with officers standing over Samples.
- Samples sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for excessive force against Vadzemnieks; the district court denied Vadzemnieks qualified immunity on summary judgment, and he appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Causation: Did taser deployment cause Samples’s brain injury? | Samples: fall after tasing likely caused skull fracture and subdural hematoma. | Vadzemnieks: unknown pre-arrival injury possible; officers didn’t recall seeing head trauma. | Court: Genuine dispute; record supports reasonable inference that injury followed taser-induced fall; assume causation for qualified-immunity analysis. |
| Excessive Force: Was using the taser objectively unreasonable? | Samples: he was unarmed, not fleeing, not meaningfully resisting; taser use was unnecessary and excessive. | Vadzemnieks: believed suspect erratic/drug-affected and potentially dangerous; split-second decision to protect officer/backup. | Court: Viewing facts for plaintiff, evidence is sufficient for a jury to find a Fourth Amendment excessive-force violation. |
| Clearly Established Law: Would a reasonable officer know tasing here was unlawful? | Samples: prior cases show tasing unarmed nonviolent suspects unlawful. | Vadzemnieks: controlling precedent (Carroll) left the question unresolved when officers faced an unarmed, possibly drug-impaired, unpredictable suspect. | Court: Law was not clearly established in these particular facts; qualified immunity applies. |
| Qualified Immunity / Remedy on Appeal: Should summary judgment denial be upheld? | Samples: denial appropriate because constitutional right was violated and precedent supports clearly-established conclusion. | Vadzemnieks: entitled to qualified immunity because precedent did not put the constitutional question beyond debate. | Court: Reversed denial of summary judgment and rendered judgment for Vadzemnieks (qualified immunity granted). |
Key Cases Cited
- Carroll v. Ellington, 800 F.3d 154 (5th Cir. 2015) (closest analogue; officer tased unarmed, drug-affected suspect; held question not clearly established)
- Newman v. Guedry, 703 F.3d 757 (5th Cir. 2012) (taser can constitute excessive force in some circumstances)
- Ramirez v. Martinez, 716 F.3d 369 (5th Cir. 2013) (excessive-force principles applied in tasing context)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (objective-reasonableness standard for Fourth Amendment force claims)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (qualified immunity two-step analysis; courts may decide order of prongs)
- Mullenix v. Luna, 136 S. Ct. 305 (2015) (clearly established law must be particularized)