887 F.3d 726
5th Cir.2018Background
- Johnson and Every were passengers in a stopped truck; officer Amador stopped it to arrest the driver, Robertson, on an outstanding warrant and handcuffed Robertson.
- Officers asked passengers for I.D.; Johnson and Every refused to identify themselves and were arrested for violating La. Rev. Stat. § 14:108 (refusal to ID during a lawful detention/arrest).
- Physical force was used to remove and handcuff Johnson and Every; Every later pleaded no-contest to resisting arrest and Johnson alleged injuries to shoulder/neck.
- Plaintiffs sued the city and seven officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for unlawful arrest and excessive force; the city moved for summary judgment on Monell claims and the district court granted it.
- A jury returned verdicts for the officers on both unlawful-arrest and excessive-force claims; the district court denied plaintiffs’ renewed JML motion.
- The Fifth Circuit affirmed the excessive-force verdict (sufficient evidence that plaintiffs failed to prove causation) but reversed and remanded as to Johnson’s unlawful-arrest claims against four arresting officers, and affirmed dismissal of municipal liability and evidentiary rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs proved excessive force under the Fourth Amendment | Plaintiffs: force caused injuries and was objectively unreasonable | Officers: plaintiffs’ injuries predated the encounter; no causal link to force | Held: Verdict for officers affirmed — plaintiffs failed to prove causation |
| Whether Johnson and Every were lawfully detained such that refusal to ID violated La. § 14:108 and provided probable cause for arrest | Plaintiffs: the stop was limited to arresting Robertson; detentions of passengers exceeded scope so refusal to ID did not supply probable cause | City/officers: stop was lawful for Robertson; continuing detention and request for ID made arrests lawful | Held: For Johnson, detention was not reasonably related to stop; refusing to ID could not supply probable cause — JML warranted as to four arresting officers; Every’s claim barred by Heck due to no-contest plea |
| Whether Every’s § 1983 unlawful-arrest claim survives despite her resisting-arrest conviction | Every: claims unlawful arrest; seeks damages | City: favorable-termination rule bars suit because conviction would be undermined | Held: Every’s claim precluded by Heck/favorable-termination rule (no reversal/expungement) |
| Whether plaintiffs adequately pleaded/triable a Monell claim based on a “stop-and-identify” policy | Plaintiffs: city had a facially unconstitutional policy of requiring ID/arresting for refusal | City: plaintiffs never pleaded that policy; summary judgment proper on failure-to-train theory | Held: Affirmed — plaintiffs may not defeat summary judgment on a theory neither pleaded nor tried by consent; no evidence supporting failure-to-train claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (favorable-termination rule bars § 1983 claims that would imply invalidity of conviction)
- Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 (officers cannot compel identification absent lawful stop or arrest)
- Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court, 542 U.S. 177 (limits on arrest for refusal to ID; ID requirement must be tied to lawful detention)
- United States v. Brigham, 382 F.3d 500 (5th Cir.) (post-stop measures must be reasonably related in scope to purpose of stop)
- Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 (officer may require driver to exit vehicle during a lawful stop)
- Maryland v. Wilson, 519 U.S. 408 (passengers may be ordered out during a lawful stop)
- Flores v. City of Palacios, 381 F.3d 391 (5th Cir.) (elements of Fourth Amendment excessive-force claim)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary-judgment standard; genuine dispute and reasonable jury standard)