Molina v. Collin County, Texas
4:17-cv-00017
E.D. Tex.Nov 14, 2017Background
- Early morning encounter: Officer Flores saw Molina and an accomplice run from his patrol car; Molina hid under front-yard bushes. Backup (Deputy Langwell) arrived with canine Elo.
- Disputed capture facts: Langwell says Elo bit Molina while Molina lay motionless face-down; Molina says he was beginning to surrender—standing/climbing over the bush—when Elo attacked, biting and shaking his leg.
- Molina alleges Elo held the bite for 15–30 seconds while Langwell pulled Elo’s leash but issued no release command or other effort to free Molina.
- Molina sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Collin County and Deputy Langwell (and state-law claims against Collin County); Langwell moved for summary judgment asserting qualified immunity and arguing punitive damages are unavailable.
- The court denied qualified immunity on Molina’s excessive-force (Fourth Amendment) claim, finding facts (viewed in Molina’s favor) showed objectively unreasonable force; the court granted summary judgment limiting punitive damages, finding no evidence of evil intent or reckless indifference and that Molina abandoned that claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Langwell is entitled to qualified immunity for alleged excessive force (dog bite) | Molina: use of canine on a surrendering, nonthreatening suspect was excessive and unreasonable | Langwell: force was objectively reasonable; suspect fled and evaded, posed a threat | Qualified immunity denied: on plaintiff’s version, Graham factors weigh for Molina and right was clearly established |
| Application of Graham factors (severity of crime, threat, resisting) | Molina: he was surrendering and did not pose an immediate threat or resist | Langwell: fleeing from officers justified canine use; Molina evaded arrest and could be armed | Court: none of the Graham factors favor Langwell—no observed crime, no known weapon, Molina attempted to surrender; factors favor Molina |
| Whether prior precedent clearly established unlawfulness of allowing a canine to bite a nonthreatening arrestee | Molina: Fifth Circuit precedent (including Cooper) and Graham framework gave fair warning | Langwell: no controlling case on dog-bite facts to deny immunity | Court: right was clearly established by Graham and Fifth Circuit decisions—qualified immunity not available |
| Availability of punitive damages under § 1983 | Molina sought punitive damages | Langwell: no evidence of malicious or reckless indifference; punitive damages improper | Court: punitive damages dismissed—no evidence of evil intent or reckless indifference and claim abandoned by Molina |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (genuine dispute and jury standard)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (excessive-force reasonableness factors)
- Cooper v. Brown, 844 F.3d 517 (canine use and qualified immunity analysis)
- Bush v. Strain, 513 F.3d 492 (reduced force once arrestee stops resisting)
- Newman v. Guedry, 703 F.3d 757 (force against nonthreatening arrestee clearly unreasonable)
- Smith v. Wade, 461 U.S. 30 (punitive damages standard under § 1983)