Louis Doss v. John Young, Jr., 699 F. App'x 337

Plaintiff Louis Doss was arrested by Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission agent Scott Helpenstell for disorderly conduct and resisting arrest with a deadly weapon; Doss sued for unlawful arrest and excessive force.
The district court granted Helpenstell summary judgment on the unlawful arrest claim based on qualified immunity, denied summary judgment as to excessive force, and later a jury found for Helpenstell on the excessive force claim.
On summary judgment the court construed all facts in Doss’s favor and assumed his version of events when analyzing qualified immunity.
The district court excluded Doss’s affidavit testimony insofar as it purported to state what Helpenstell subjectively knew at the time of arrest (personal knowledge issue).
Doss asserted Helpenstell later “confessed” that he knew Doss had pointed a camera, not a weapon, but the court treated post-incident statements to another officer as not proving Helpenstell’s pre-arrest belief.
Doss also challenged the district court’s allowance of Helpenstell’s late-filed summary judgment motion; the district court granted leave to file and explained its reasoning.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Helpenstell is entitled to qualified immunity on unlawful arrest	Doss argued the court should accept his version and that Helpenstell knew the object was a camera, not a weapon	Helpenstell argued his actions were reasonable based on the circumstances and qualified immunity applies	Court affirmed qualified immunity and summary judgment for Helpenstell
Admissibility of Doss’s affidavit about Helpenstell’s subjective knowledge	Doss claimed he personally knew what Helpenstell knew	Helpenstell argued Doss lacked personal knowledge so those statements were incompetent under Rule 56	Court held Doss lacked personal knowledge; affidavit was not competent evidence of Helpenstell’s subjective belief
Weight of Helpenstell’s alleged post-incident “confession”	Doss relied on a post-incident statement to another officer to show Helpenstell knew it was a camera	Helpenstell and the court argued post-incident statements do not prove what an officer believed at the time of arrest	Court rejected using the post-incident statement as proof of pre-arrest belief
District court’s grant of leave to file a late summary judgment motion	Doss argued the motion should not have been allowed after the deadline	Helpenstell relied on the district court’s discretion to extend deadlines	Court found no abuse of discretion in permitting the late-filed motion

Goodson v. City of Corpus Christi, 202 F.3d 730 (5th Cir. 2000) (qualified immunity/scope of summary judgment review)
Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222 (5th Cir. 1993) (pro se appellants must adequately brief arguments)
Edwards v. Cass Cty., Tex., 919 F.2d 273 (5th Cir. 1990) (district courts’ docket-control discretion)
Geiserman v. MacDonald, 893 F.2d 787 (5th Cir. 1990) (standard for reviewing extensions of time and abuse of discretion)