Joseph Clark v. Ray Miller, 641 F. App'x 418

Background

Joseph Bradley Clark, a Mississippi prisoner, sued Harrison County officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging excessive force during his arrest: canine bites and being tased after submitting.
District court granted summary judgment for defendants on qualified immunity grounds, dismissed some defendants for lack of personal involvement, and found no evidence a taser was deployed.
Clark appealed pro se; the bulk of his appeal contested the district court’s rejection of his claim that he was tased and that force was excessive.
The Fifth Circuit reviews summary judgment de novo and must view evidence and reasonable inferences in the nonmovant’s (Clark’s) favor at this stage.
The majority found Clark submitted affidavit/deposition evidence (hearing three pops, abdominal knots/bruising, hospital note of bruising) that could support a finding of taser use and injury, creating a genuine dispute of material fact as to tasing and the reasonableness of force.
The Fifth Circuit vacated and remanded Clark’s excessive-force claim against Officer Branning (qualified immunity reversed as to that claim) and affirmed the remainder of the district court’s judgment.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether summary judgment on qualified immunity was proper as to Branning’s alleged use of a taser	Clark: evidence (heard three pops, had abdominal knots/bruises, hospital note) creates a genuine dispute that he was tased after submitting	Branning: no taser was deployed; district court reasonably credited officers and found no evidence of tasing	Reversed as to Branning: genuine dispute exists; remanded for excessive-force claim (qualified immunity denied at summary stage)
Whether repeated taser application after a suspect is subdued is objectively unreasonable / clearly established law	Clark: tasing a subdued, unarmed, disabled man is excessive	Defendants: force was reasonable given circumstances; no taser evidence	Held: law clearly establishes that force on a subdued, compliant suspect can be excessive; factual dispute could show constitutionally excessive force
Whether other defendants (Massengill, Branning re: dog bites, Moran, Brisolara) were properly dismissed for lack of personal involvement or supervisory liability	Clark did not press these issues on appeal	Defendants: no personal involvement or supervisory liability proven	Affirmed: claims abandoned by Clark on appeal; district court dismissal affirmed
Whether Clark waived challenge to qualified immunity by failing to brief it adequately	Clark: argued genuine factual dispute about tasing; challenged district court’s basis for summary judgment in reply	Branning/Dissent: Clark raised qualified-immunity argument only in reply; waived and burden on plaintiff; insufficient evidence beyond self-serving statements	Majority: did not find waiver dispositive; Dissent: would find waiver and affirm district court

Key Cases Cited

Nickell v. Beau View of Biloxi, L.L.C., 636 F.3d 762 (6th Cir. 2011) (summary-judgment standard reviewed de novo)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (definition of genuine dispute of material fact at summary judgment)
Tarver v. City of Edna, 410 F.3d 745 (5th Cir. 2005) (courts must not discount plaintiff’s version at summary judgment)
Tolan v. Cotton, 134 S. Ct. 1861 (U.S. 2014) (qualified immunity: view evidence in light most favorable to nonmovant at summary judgment)
Rockwell v. Brown, 664 F.3d 985 (5th Cir. 2011) (excessive force standard: ‘‘clearly excessive to the need’’ / ‘‘objectively unreasonable’’)
Deville v. Marcantel, 567 F.3d 156 (5th Cir. 2009) (excessive-force claims are fact-intensive under Graham)
Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (U.S. 1989) (Fourth Amendment reasonableness framework for use-of-force claims)
Carroll v. Ellington, 800 F.3d 154 (5th Cir. 2015) (repeated Taser applications on subdued suspect may be excessive)
Bush v. Strain, 513 F.3d 492 (5th Cir. 2008) (amount of force depends on crime severity, threat posed, and resistance)