Mason v. Lafayette City-Parish Consolidated Government
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 19598
| 5th Cir. | 2015Background
- Officer Martin Faul responded to a dispatched report of an armed robbery at an apartment; he arrived with two other officers and his police canine.
- Qua-maine Mason exited the apartment with his girlfriend, Racquel Babino; Mason matched the dispatch description and had a handgun in his waistband.
- Witnesses dispute critical facts: officers say Mason moved toward his gun and was dangerous; Babino says Mason stood with hands up and made no threatening movement.
- Faul released his dog and then fired seven shots; the final two shots struck Mason in the back after he was on the ground, according to some testimony.
- The Masons sued Faul, Lafayette City-Parish, and Chief Craft under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (excessive force, substantive due process, deliberate indifference) and state law; Faul asserted qualified immunity.
- The district court granted summary judgment for defendants; the Fifth Circuit reversed as to qualified immunity for Faul on the Fourth Amendment and related state-law claims limited to the final two shots, and remanded; other claims were affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Excessive force (Fourth Amendment) | Faul used objectively unreasonable, deadly force—especially the final two shots fired after Mason was incapacitated. | Faul had probable cause to believe Mason posed an immediate threat; qualified immunity shields him. | Genuine fact issues (Babino’s testimony, forensic evidence) preclude summary judgment as to the final two shots; qualified immunity denied for those shots and remanded. |
| Substantive due process ("shocks the conscience") | Faul’s conduct was conscience-shocking and independent of Fourth Amendment analysis. | Graham requires Fourth Amendment analysis for seizures by police; substantive due process is not the proper vehicle. | Claim rejected: Graham controls; conduct analyzed under Fourth Amendment, so substantive due process claim fails. |
| Deliberate indifference to medical needs (Fourteenth Amendment) | Faul failed to render or ensure adequate medical aid after shooting (policy requires immediate first aid). | Faul called ambulance, secured the dog, and others were attending Mason; no subjective deliberate indifference. | Denied: facts show at most negligence or compliance with reasonable alternatives; Faul entitled to judgment as a matter of law. |
| Monell municipal liability (policy/custom/causation) | Lafayette’s policies, training, investigatory deficiencies, and practices (e.g., ignoring dispatch/computer, canine use, scene practices, cleanup) caused constitutional violations. | Alleged failures are isolated or individual misconduct, not municipal policy or a persistent custom; no causal nexus to a municipal policy. | Denied: plaintiffs failed to prove an official policy or widespread custom or the requisite causation/deliberate indifference for Monell liability. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985) (deadly force permissible only if officer has probable cause to believe suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (use-of-force claims arising from seizures are governed by Fourth Amendment "reasonableness" standard)
- Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipal liability under § 1983 requires an official policy or custom causally linked to the constitutional violation)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007) (on summary judgment courts must view facts in light most favorable to nonmovant but may reject version of events blatantly contradicted by video)
- Tolan v. Cotton, 134 S. Ct. 1861 (2014) (on excessive-force summary judgment, courts must credit the nonmoving party’s version of disputed facts and draw reasonable inferences in their favor)
- Brosseau v. Haugen, 543 U.S. 194 (2004) (qualified immunity analysis can be decided by reference to clearly established law when facts are not in dispute)