Michael Bourne v. Michael Gunnels
921 F.3d 484
| 5th Cir. | 2019Background
- In November 2014, inmate Michael Bourne jammed his cell food-tray slot, covered his cell windows, and refused orders, prompting a five-officer team to deploy chemical agent and enter to regain control.
- Officers sprayed chemical agent through the tray, waited, then forced entry; video is dark during most of the in-cell altercation because lights were off and a supervisor blocked the camera.
- Officers restrained Bourne on the cell floor; Bourne claims excessive force occurred after he was handcuffed and shackled, including punches, genital squeezing, and a gloved finger inserted into his anus through his shorts.
- Medical notes record a cut above his eye, swelling, abrasions consistent with a takedown, and Bourne complained of eye gouging and genital burning from chemical agent.
- The district court granted summary judgment for defendants: Eleventh Amendment barred official-capacity damages, Heck barred excessive-force claims (as alternative), and in the alternative defendants were entitled to qualified immunity after applying Hudson factors.
- The Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded: Heck does not bar Bourne’s excessive-force claims, and genuine disputes of material fact remain about whether force continued after Bourne was restrained, so summary judgment on qualified immunity was improper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Heck bars Bourne’s § 1983 excessive-force claims | Heck is inapplicable; relief won’t affect conviction or good-time credits | Heck bars claims because success would imply invalidity of disciplinary findings that led to loss of good time | Rejected: Heck does not bar the claims because success would not invalidate conviction or shorten sentence |
| Whether defendants are entitled to qualified immunity for alleged excessive force | Force continued after Bourne was restrained and non-threatening; facts create triable dispute | Use of force was reasonable, tailored to resistance and threat; video and reports support officers | Reversed: genuine factual dispute exists about force after restraint; QI inappropriate at summary judgment |
| Whether video evidence blatantly contradicts Bourne’s account so his version must be disregarded | Video does not show the in-cell struggle (lights off / view blocked); plaintiff’s sworn and witness statements create disputes | Video and reports show repeated resistance and officers shouting “stop resisting”; video supports defendants’ account | Held for Bourne: video does not “blatantly contradict” or “utterly discredit” his account regarding the in-cell, post-restraint force |
| Whether Hudson factors support judgment for defendants on excessive-force claim | Hudson factors evaluated in plaintiff’s favor given injuries and allegations of malicious conduct after restraint | Hudson factors support that force was a good-faith effort to restore discipline | Remanded: Hudson analysis unresolved because material disputes remain about force after restraint |
Key Cases Cited
- Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) (limits § 1983 recoveries that would imply invalidity of conviction or sentence)
- Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1 (1992) (sets five-factor test for Eighth Amendment excessive-force claims)
- Wilkins v. Gaddy, 559 U.S. 34 (2010) (focus on nature of force rather than extent of injury)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007) (video may discredit plaintiff’s version when it blatantly contradicts it)
- Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641 (1997) (Heck extends to certain disciplinary convictions affecting good-time credits)
- Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749 (2004) (Heck applies to original judgment imprisonment not necessarily to disciplinary confinement)
- Brown v. Callahan, 623 F.3d 249 (5th Cir. 2010) (qualified immunity summary-judgment burden shifts to plaintiff)
- Hanks v. Rogers, 853 F.3d 738 (5th Cir. 2017) (do not credit plaintiff’s version when blatantly contradicted by video)
- Gates v. Texas Dept. of Protective & Regulatory Servs., 537 F.3d 404 (5th Cir. 2008) (plaintiff must show genuine issues of material fact to overcome qualified immunity)