Jeff Hatcher v. City of Grand Prairie
676 F. App'x 238
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- On Jan. 24, 2013, GPPD Officer Wesley Bement pursued Jordan Hatcher after a shoplifting report; Hatcher fled on foot to a college parking lot where multiple officers confronted him.
- Bement deployed a Taser (one probe attached), applied drive-stuns, and struggled with Hatcher while Tarrant County College PD officers sprayed Hatcher with pepper spray.
- Bement claims Hatcher grabbed the Taser, moved toward another officer, then turned toward Bement in a threatening manner, leading Bement to shoot Hatcher multiple times, killing him.
- TCCPD Officer Denson and two civilian eyewitnesses stated Hatcher appeared to be squinting, bent over, wiping pepper spray residue, and attempting to walk away when Bement shot; eyewitnesses reported seeing no weapon.
- The district court denied Bement’s summary judgment motion asserting qualified immunity, finding genuine disputed material facts (primarily based on Denson’s statement); Bement appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bement is entitled to qualified immunity on §1983 excessive-force claim | Hatcher was non-threatening (bent over, wiping eyes, walking away); deadly force was unreasonable | Bement reasonably believed Hatcher posed an immediate threat (was armed with Taser, moving toward officers) | Denied qualified immunity at summary judgment—genuine disputed material fact exists about threat level |
| Whether prior case law clearly established that shooting a suspect in this posture is unlawful | Prior Fourth Amendment precedent put officers on notice that shooting a suspect who is bent over, squinting, and walking away is unlawful | The general rule allowing deadly force when an officer reasonably perceives imminent serious harm applies here | Court: law clearly established in analogous cases; not an "obvious case" standard but prior cases give fair warning—summary judgment inappropriate |
| Proper standard of review for denial of qualified immunity on summary judgment | N/A (procedural) | N/A | De novo review applies because district court conducted independent review; magistrate objection timing does not change standard |
| Admissibility / weight of eyewitness statements supporting plaintiff | Denson’s statement and eyewitness accounts create a material factual dispute on whether Hatcher was a threat | Bement argued conflicting affidavits and versions of events favor his account | Court treated Denson’s account (and not excluding eyewitnesses) as creating a genuine issue of material fact supporting denial of summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Meadours v. Ermel, 483 F.3d 417 (5th Cir. 2007) (refused qualified immunity where material dispute whether armed suspect posed threat at shooting)
- Bazan ex rel. Bazan v. Hidalgo Cty., 246 F.3d 481 (5th Cir. 2001) (deadly force unconstitutional absent probable cause to believe suspect posed serious threat)
- Davenport v. Causey, 521 F.3d 544 (5th Cir. 2008) (upheld shooting where suspect was actively striking an officer)
- Mullenix v. Luna, 136 S. Ct. 305 (2015) (qualified immunity doctrine and limits on using broad legal tests detached from facts)
- Brosseau v. Haugen, 543 U.S. 194 (2004) (clearly established right must be tethered to analogous facts)
- Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985) (deadly force is a seizure governed by Fourth Amendment reasonableness)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (objective-reasonableness standard for excessive-force claims)