Peter Klassen v. Gaines County, Texas, and Gaines County Deputy Sheriffs Ken Ketron and Clint Low
11-19-00266-CV
| Tex. App. | Jul 15, 2021Background
- Deputies Ketron and Low responded to a dispute where three witnesses reported Klassen had assaulted them, threatened to get a gun, and prevented others from leaving.
- Deputies ordered Klassen to put his hands up, turn, and get on the ground; Klassen knelt and placed his hands on the ground as he was falling.
- Deputy Ketron put hands on Klassen’s back and used his body weight to move Klassen into a prone position; Klassen struck his chin, losing teeth and fracturing his jaw.
- Klassen sued Gaines County and the deputies under § 1983 (excessive force) and various state tort claims; the TTCA election-of-remedies dismissed state claims against the deputies.
- Defendants moved under Texas Rule 91a and alternatively for summary judgment; the trial court considered evidence beyond pleadings (including video) and granted summary judgment/dismissal with prejudice.
- The Eleventh Court of Appeals treated the ruling as summary judgment, reviewed de novo, and affirmed dismissal of all claims against the deputies and the county.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency under Rule 91a / procedural posture | Klassen argued his second amended petition and exhibits showed a basis in law and fact, so Rule 91a dismissal was improper. | Defs argued the pleadings and evidence (and TTCA election) supported dismissal; trial court actually relied on summary judgment evidence. | Court treated ruling as summary judgment; Rule 91a sufficiency irrelevant and issue overruled. |
| Excessive-force (Fourth Amendment) | Klassen argued deputies used excessive force (threw him down, jumped on his back, caused serious injury). | Defs argued video and circumstances show Ketron used brief body-weight control to secure and handcuff Klassen, which was objectively reasonable. | Court held video plainly contradicted Klassen’s account and that force was not objectively unreasonable; summary judgment for deputies affirmed. |
| Qualified immunity | Klassen argued deputies’ conduct violated clearly established law. | Defs asserted qualified immunity; plaintiff must identify clearly established precedent. | Court found Klassen failed to cite controlling precedent defining unlawfulness with sufficient particularity; qualified immunity defense sustained. |
| Municipal liability / failure to train | Klassen argued Gaines County failed to train deputies about force. | County argued no underlying constitutional violation by deputies and no evidence of a training/custom failure. | Because no constitutional violation was found (and no evidence of a policy/custom), county liability and failure-to-train claim failed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (Fourth Amendment excessive-force standard)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (video evidence can refute plaintiff’s version at summary judgment)
- Lytle v. Bexar Cty., Tex., 560 F.3d 404 (objective-reasonableness analysis may be resolved as a matter of law when facts are undisputed)
- Trammell v. Fruge, 868 F.3d 332 (Graham factors for excessive-force analysis)
- Flores v. City of Palacios, 381 F.3d 391 (elements of § 1983 excessive-force claim)
- District of Columbia v. Wesby, 138 S. Ct. 577 (qualified immunity framework)
- Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (municipal liability theories)
- City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378 (failure-to-train standard)
- City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (standards for evaluating summary-judgment evidence in Texas)