Gutierrez v. Luna County
841 F.3d 895
| 10th Cir. | 2016Background
- On July 4, 2009 Deputy Gabriel Maynes pursued Anna Gutierrez after a traffic violation; he fired a taser, struck her in the back, chased her into an apartment, and tased and struck her repeatedly; Gutierrez was later handcuffed and sustained injuries; criminal charges were dismissed.
- Patsy Flores (Gutierrez’s mother) opened the apartment door; Maynes pushed Gutierrez inside and then tased Flores on the leg when she pleaded for her daughter.
- Plaintiffs sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for excessive force (Count III), unlawful entry (Count I), and unlawful seizure (Count II) against Maynes in his individual capacity; the district court granted Maynes summary judgment based on qualified immunity and denied Plaintiffs’ Rule 56(d) discovery request.
- On appeal Plaintiffs argued (primarily for excessive force and that entry and seizure were unconstitutional); the Tenth Circuit affirmed, focusing on Plaintiffs’ failure to satisfy the "clearly established" prong of qualified immunity.
- The court affirmed summary judgment on excessive force because Plaintiffs made no legal argument or citation in district court on qualified immunity; it affirmed the unlawful-entry and unlawful-seizure rulings because Plaintiffs failed to identify controlling precedent that made the law clearly established in 2009.
- The court also affirmed denial of Plaintiffs’ Rule 56(d) motion as untimely and insufficiently specific about why additional discovery was essential to defeat the qualified-immunity motions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Excessive force (Count III) | Maynes used excessive force on Gutierrez and Flores (Graham principles) | Qualified immunity; Plaintiffs failed to show a clearly established right | Affirmed for Maynes—Plaintiffs did not present legal authority in district court to meet the clearly-established prong, so summary judgment was proper |
| Unlawful entry (Count I) | Warrantless hot-pursuit entry into apartment violated Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment rights | Entry justified by hot-pursuit and emergency-aid exceptions; in any event law was not clearly established in 2009 | Affirmed for Maynes—Plaintiffs failed to show that it was clearly established in 2009 that hot pursuit of a misdemeanant into a home was unconstitutional in these circumstances |
| Unlawful seizure of Flores (Count II) | Tasing of Flores was a seizure unsupported by probable cause | Qualified immunity; no clearly established law that a tasing in these circumstances constitutes a Fourth Amendment seizure | Affirmed for Maynes—Plaintiffs failed to cite clearly established authority that a taser discharge under these facts constituted a seizure |
| Rule 56(d) discovery denial | Additional discovery (dispatch recordings, taser maintenance/training, witness knowledge) was necessary to oppose summary judgment | Plaintiffs’ request was untimely and too generalized; affidavit did not show how specific discovery was essential to the qualified-immunity defense | Affirmed—district court did not abuse discretion; Plaintiffs’ Rule 56(d) request was untimely and insufficiently specific |
Key Cases Cited
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (standard for excessive-force claims under the Fourth Amendment)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (courts may address qualified-immunity prongs in any order)
- Ashcroft v. al–Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (2011) (qualified-immunity inquiry requires clearly established law beyond debate)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001) (order-of-inquiry discussion in qualified-immunity analysis)
- Smith v. McCord, 707 F.3d 1161 (10th Cir. 2013) (affirming summary judgment where plaintiff failed to raise qualified-immunity argument below)
- Rojas v. Anderson, 727 F.3d 1000 (10th Cir. 2013) (same principle: absence of legal argument below warrants qualified-immunity judgment)
- Mascorro v. Billings, 656 F.3d 1198 (10th Cir. 2011) (hot-pursuit entry analysis; exigency requires serious offense plus pressing concerns)
- Bledsoe v. Garcia, 742 F.2d 1237 (10th Cir. 1984) (exigent-circumstances entry upheld in non–hot-pursuit context)
- Cavanaugh v. Woods Cross City, 625 F.3d 661 (10th Cir. 2010) (taser use discussed in excessive-force context; did not establish that all tasings constitute Fourth Amendment seizures)