375 F. Supp. 3d 725
S.D. Tex.2019Background
- On Nov. 29, 2014, Deputy Brian Skero stopped Trevor Pinder for traffic violations; the encounter escalated into a physical struggle captured on Skero’s dash cam.
- Video shows repeated noncompliance by Pinder (refused to hang up phone, delayed exiting, would not stand where directed), an exchange over an object Pinder tried to put in his mouth, a struggle, a takedown, a sustained right-arm headlock/chokehold, punches, and deployment of a taser.
- Pinder later pleaded guilty to DWI related to the stop; he alleges emotional and physical harms and loss of employment but produced no affidavit or medical proof of injuries at summary judgment.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment asserting qualified immunity for Skero and lack of Monell liability for Montgomery County; plaintiff moved to strike an expert report attached by defendants.
- Court struck the unopposed/unsupporting expert report, reviewed video and admissible deposition evidence, and granted summary judgment for both defendants: Skero entitled to qualified immunity; no municipal liability shown against the County.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Skero used excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment | Pinder contends force (takedown, chokehold, punches, taser) was excessive and caused harm | Skero says force was objectively reasonable given suspected DWI, repeated noncompliance, physical resistance, and grabbing officer equipment; asserts qualified immunity | Court: Skero entitled to qualified immunity — force was objectively reasonable under the circumstances and plaintiff failed to present evidence to create a fact issue |
| Whether Montgomery County is liable under Monell for failing to train/supervise, tolerating excessive force, or ratifying conduct | County had patterns/customs of inadequate training, shielding officers, and ratification (based on alleged multiple incidents) | County argues plaintiff produced no admissible evidence of an official policy, widespread practice, or deliberate indifference linking County action to the violation | Court: No Monell liability — plaintiff did not present admissible evidence of a policy/custom/ratification or deliberate indifference |
| Whether defendants’ expert report (Hauck) can be considered | N/A (plaintiff moved to strike) | Defendants submitted report but failed to justify expert qualifications or respond to strike motion | Court: Motion to strike granted — Hauck’s affidavit/report excluded from summary-judgment consideration (but not precluded later if properly offered) |
| Whether plaintiff produced sufficient admissible evidence of injury and disputed facts | Pinder alleged emotional and physical injury, reputational harm, and lost job | Defendants noted plaintiff submitted no affidavits, medical records, or specific citations to evidence; relied on video and Skero deposition | Court: Plaintiff failed to produce admissible evidence to raise material factual disputes; absence of injury proof and other sworn evidence undermined his claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007) (courts may rely on video evidence that blatantly contradicts a party’s version of events)
- Griggs v. Brewer, 841 F.3d 308 (5th Cir. 2016) (give greater weight to facts evident from video recordings at summary judgment)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (qualified immunity framework permitting courts to choose analysis order)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (excessive-force reasonableness standard under the Fourth Amendment)
- Poole v. City of Shreveport, 691 F.3d 624 (5th Cir. 2012) (use of taser and takedown against resisting, suspected-DWI suspect analyzed under measured, ascending responses)
- Deville v. Marcantel, 567 F.3d 156 (5th Cir. 2009) (officer violates Fourth Amendment by abruptly using overwhelming force against passive, nonthreatening resistance)
- Darden v. City of Fort Worth, 880 F.3d 722 (5th Cir. 2018) (use of chokehold, punching, and kicking may be excessive if suspect not actively resisting)
- Ramirez v. Martinez, 716 F.3d 369 (5th Cir. 2013) (taser use analyzed under general excessive-force principles; instrumentality does not shield excessive force)
- Newman v. Guedry, 703 F.3d 757 (5th Cir. 2012) (reasonable officials cannot avoid liability by citing novelty of force instrument)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001) (qualified immunity’s "fair warning" concept)
- Mullenix v. Luna, 136 S. Ct. 305 (2015) (clearly established law requires that every reasonable official would understand the conduct was unlawful)