Henry Harris v. Jackson County, Mississippi
684 F. App'x 459
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Police obtained a search warrant for a house suspected to be a gambling/drug site after tips and surveillance; a flash-bang was used to enter on July 10, 2013.
- Several people ran out the front; Officer Ken McClenic was positioned at the front door and struck multiple individuals with an ASP (police baton) to gain compliance.
- Henry Harris was struck by McClenic while exiting and alleges he was complying with orders to get on the ground; he claims the blow and resulting fall injured his elbow and required hospital treatment.
- Harris sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for excessive force (individual and official capacity), plus municipal liability theories and other claims; many defendants and claims were dismissed earlier in the case.
- The district court granted summary judgment to McClenic (qualified immunity) and to Jackson County (no municipal liability); Harris appealed only the excessive-force and municipal-liability dismissals.
- The Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding a genuine dispute of fact existed on excessive force but the right was not clearly established as required to overcome qualified immunity, and Harris failed to show a municipal policy or pattern of unconstitutional conduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether McClenic used constitutionally excessive force when he struck Harris with an ASP during raid exit | Harris: He was complying/getting on ground and was struck unnecessarily, causing injury | McClenic: Force was used to secure compliance amid a dynamic raid and perceived threat; qualified immunity applies | Court: Fact dispute exists on reasonableness, but right was not "clearly established" — qualified immunity affirmed |
| Whether Harris demonstrated a constitutional violation to overcome qualified immunity | Harris: Actions violated clearly established Fourth Amendment excessive-force standards | McClenic: No controlling precedent on similar facts showing clear violation | Court: Plaintiff failed to identify controlling precedent; burden unmet |
| Whether Jackson County is liable under Monell for McClenic’s conduct | Harris: County liable via policy/custom or because McClenic was a final policymaker | County: No official policy or pervasive custom; isolated incident insufficient; McClenic not shown to be final policymaker | Court: No evidence of widespread practice or final policymaker status; municipal liability denied |
| Whether evidence of a pattern or inadequate training/supervision supports municipal liability | Harris: Points to alleged recurring misconduct or inadequate training (argued briefly) | County: No evidence of prior incidents or training failures; argument waived/insufficient | Court: Plaintiff failed to present pattern or training evidence; claim waived or unsupported |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (defining qualified immunity standard)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (force-reasonableness factors under the Fourth Amendment)
- Ballard v. Burton, 444 F.3d 391 (summary-judgment review and officer perspective on force)
- Brumfield v. Hollins, 551 F.3d 322 (qualified immunity requires unlawfulness to be clearly established)
- Carroll v. Ellington, 800 F.3d 154 (force on subdued, nonresisting suspect is excessive)
- Valle v. City of Houston, 613 F.3d 536 (municipal liability standards; single-incident exception)
- Piotrowski v. City of Houston, 237 F.3d 567 (isolated acts generally insufficient for Monell liability)
- Peterson v. City of Fort Worth, 588 F.3d 838 (need for a pattern of abuses to establish custom)