Leslie Hendershot v. Dustin Slovacek
709 F. App'x 250
5th Cir.2017Background
- Hendershot, a federal prisoner, sued Texas trooper Dustin Slovacek, DeWitt County deputies Jeffery Thompson and Raul Diaz, and doctors Alfred Bowles, David Hill, and David Blomstrom under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging excessive force and inadequate medical care after a traffic stop and alleged shooting.
- Hendershot claimed he swallowed 32 grams of methamphetamine, that gunfire from a nearby compound erupted, and that Deputy Thompson shot him in the face with a shotgun.
- The district court granted summary judgment for defendants; officers were dismissed on qualified immunity grounds and official-capacity claims were dismissed as barred by sovereign immunity.
- The district court also granted summary judgment for the doctors, concluding no genuine dispute of material fact about their medical treatment of Hendershot.
- Hendershot sought production of hospital surveillance video and appointment of counsel; the district court denied these requests and the Fifth Circuit found no abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Qualified immunity for officers | Hendershot: officers used excessive force (shot him in face) | Officers: record contradicts Hendershot’s account; no constitutional violation | Court: affirmed qualified immunity; Hendershot’s story is blatantly contradicted by record (no wounds in hospital photos) |
| Medical care claims against doctors | Hendershot: doctors failed to diagnose/treat gunshot wounds | Doctors: no genuine dispute that care met standards; record contradicts asserted injuries | Court: summary judgment for doctors; no material fact dispute |
| Official-capacity (sovereign immunity) | Hendershot: challenges dismissal | Defendants: official-capacity claims barred by sovereign immunity | Court: dismissal affirmed; Hendershot abandoned argument by failing to brief it |
| Discovery denial (hospital video) | Hendershot: district court should have ordered production of surveillance footage | Defendants: court did not abuse discretion in discovery rulings | Court: denial of production not an abuse of discretion; motion denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Estate of Henson v. Wichita Cnty., 795 F.3d 456 (5th Cir. 2015) (standard of review for summary judgment in § 1983 suits)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007) (record that 'blatantly contradicts' plaintiff’s account can preclude reasonable jury verdict)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (qualified immunity framework requires showing violation of clearly established law)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986) (summary judgment standard on absence of genuine issue of material fact)
- Holtzclaw v. DSC Commc’ns Corp., 255 F.3d 254 (5th Cir. 2001) (summary judgment principles regarding factual disputes)
- Mapes v. Bishop, 541 F.3d 582 (5th Cir. 2008) (failure to brief an issue constitutes abandonment)
- Am. Family Life Assur. Co. of Columbus v. Biles, 714 F.3d 887 (5th Cir. 2013) (abuse of discretion standard for discovery rulings)
- Ulmer v. Chancellor, 691 F.2d 209 (5th Cir. 1982) (standards for appointing counsel in civil cases)
- Theriot v. Parish of Jefferson, 185 F.3d 477 (5th Cir. 1999) (rules on supplemental attachments and briefing)