John Hogan v. City of Corpus Christi, Texas
722 F.3d 725
| 5th Cir. | 2013Background
- Officers Cunningham and Potter, Corpus Christi Police Department, pursued Hogan regarding a child-custody dispute under a divorce decree entitling Hogan’s ex-wife to possession of their son.
- At Hogan’s apartment, Loudin opened the door; Cunningham’s foot blocked the doorway while Potter and Cunningham stated they were there to enforce custody terms.
- Hogan allegedly attempted to close the door; Cunningham says the door hit him, prompting a forceful entry and Hogan’s arrest for assault on a peace officer; Hogan contests hitting anyone and asserts the Officers tackled him.
- Disputes arose about whether Hogan hit the officer, whether officers used a “controlled take-down,” and the amount of force used inside the apartment, resulting in Hogan’s two broken ribs.
- The district court denied summary judgment on Hogan’s §1983 unlawful-arrest and excessive-force claims and on state-law assault and battery, while granting it on some related claims; the Officers appealed.
- The court grants qualified-immunity-based relief on the excessive-force claim but not on the unlawful-arrest claim, and lacks jurisdiction to review some state-law claims on interlocutory review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Officers had probable cause and exigent circumstances for a warrantless home arrest | Hogan argues there was no probable cause or exigent circumstances. | Officers contend probable cause existed under Tex. Penal Code §25.03 for custody interference; exigency alleged from door strike. | Unlawful arrest claim survives; qualified immunity not warranted on the home arrest. |
| Whether the Officers used excessive force in arresting Hogan | Hogan asserts the takedown caused serious injuries and was unreasonable. | Officers argue force was reasonable to subdue a resisting suspect during a custody-fixated arrest. | Excessive-force claim resolved in Officers’ favor; qualified immunity affirmed. |
| Whether Texas Family Code immunity (section 9.51(a)) shields the Officers from state-law assault/battery claims | N/A | Section 9.51(a) is an affirmative defense of privilege, not immunity. | Lacks jurisdiction to review this interlocutory appeal on state-law claims; privilege issue not reviewable here. |
| Whether the district court erred in denying summary judgment on Hogan’s unlawful-arrest claims | Hogan maintains arrest violated Fourth Amendment due to lack of warrant and lack of exigent circumstances. | Probable cause plus exigent circumstances justified arrest if door strike presumed; factual disputes unresolved on appeal. | Unlawful-arrest denial affirmed for purposes of qualified-immunity review; factual dispute treated in Hogan’s favor for the legal question. |
| Whether the district court erred in denying summary judgment on Hogan’s state-law assault/battery claims | N/A | Immunity under Texas law may apply; summary judgment inappropriate. | Interlocutory appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on state-law claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980) (threshold for entering a home requires warrant or exigent circumstances)
- Kirk v. Louisiana, 536 U.S. 635 (2002) (exigent circumstances in warrantless home entries must be present)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (reasonableness of force judged from officer on the scene; objective standard)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (1989) (two-step qualified-immunity analysis: objective reasonableness and clearly established right)
- Reichle v. Howards, 132 S. Ct. 2088 (2012) (clear-established-right inquiry requires a robust consensus of authority)