Katie Joseph v. John Doe, 981 F.3d 319

Background

Middle-school staff reported a “strange” man (Kendole Joseph), who ran into a convenience store and jumped behind the checkout counter; Joseph had paranoid schizophrenia and was off his medication.
Multiple Gretna police officers entered the store; Joseph dropped into a fetal position behind the counter and continually shouted that he was unarmed and asked for help.
Officers Martin and Leduff first went over the counter; Martin pinned Joseph, deployed his Taser twice, struck him with a baton, and punched him; Officer Costa kicked and punched Joseph; other officers observed and at times held Joseph down.
Joseph suffered 26 blunt-force injuries, became unresponsive after being placed prone in a patrol car, and died two days later.
Plaintiffs sued for excessive force (Martin, Costa) and failure to intervene (nine other officers). The district court denied qualified immunity for all defendants.
The Fifth Circuit affirmed denial of summary judgment as to Martin and Costa (excessive force / clearly established law) and reversed as to the nine bystander officers (qualified immunity granted for lack of plaintiff identification of analogous precedents).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Excessive-force (Martin & Costa) — Fourth Amendment	Martin and Costa used excessive, disproportionate force on a noncriminal, unarmed, largely nonresisting man (tasing, baton, punches, kicks).	Use of force was reasonable because Joseph fled, ignored commands, and intermittently struggled.	Denied qualified immunity; genuine fact disputes permit jury to find excessive force.
Clearly established law re: Martin & Costa	Precedent (Newman, Ramirez, Cooper, Darden) made it clearly established that tasing/striking a nonresisting or subdued suspect is unconstitutional.	No clearly analogous case; conduct arguably reasonable given resistance.	Denied qualified immunity — court identified similar Fifth Circuit cases that would have put reasonable officers on notice.
Failure-to-intervene (bystander officers) — merits	Observing officers knew of and acquiesced in unconstitutional force, had opportunity to act, and failed to intervene.	Defendants dispute what they saw, their opportunity to act, and whether constitutional violation occurred.	Denied summary judgment on merits (genuine factual disputes exist) so jury can decide.
Clearly established law re: bystanders	Plaintiffs did not identify analogous precedent but relied on the same principles as to primary actors.	Defendants argued no clear precedent put them on notice.	Reversed — granted qualified immunity to bystander officers because Plaintiffs failed to identify analogous cases showing the duty to intervene was clearly established.

Key Cases Cited

Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (use-of-force judged by objective reasonableness under Graham factors)
Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001) (two-step qualified-immunity framework)
Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (courts may exercise discretion to address clearly-established prong first)
District of Columbia v. Wesby, 138 S. Ct. 577 (2018) (requirement to identify precedent placing the constitutional question beyond debate)
Newman v. Guedry, 703 F.3d 757 (5th Cir. 2012) (repeated tasing/striking of a noncriminal, nonthreatening, nonresisting individual was excessive)
Ramirez v. Martinez, 716 F.3d 369 (5th Cir. 2013) (tasing a minimally resisting or subdued suspect was excessive)
Cooper v. Brown, 844 F.3d 517 (5th Cir. 2016) (continued force after suspect was cornered and unable to evade custody was excessive)
Darden v. City of Fort Worth, 880 F.3d 722 (5th Cir. 2018) (reaffirmed that tasing/striking a nonresisting arrestee violated clearly established law)
Pratt v. Harris County, 822 F.3d 174 (5th Cir. 2016) (contrasting example where force was applied in measured, escalating response to active resistance)
Curran v. Aleshire, 800 F.3d 656 (5th Cir. 2015) (timing between suspect resistance and officer force matters; force can become unreasonable if resistance has ceased)