Prim v. Deputy Stein
6 F.4th 584
| 5th Cir. | 2021Background:
- On June 17, 2018, Eric and Janet Prim attended a concert at the Cynthia Woods Mitchell Pavilion; each drank alcohol before and during the event.
- Janet has multiple sclerosis (MS) and experiences stumbling, vision issues, and memory problems; she appeared unstable leaving the concert.
- Pavilion employee John Harshaw and Pavilion security escorted the Prims to the security office; a deputy administered a horizontal gaze nystagmus test to Eric, which he failed twice.
- Officers concluded the Prims were intoxicated, refused to let them walk a mile-plus home across busy intersections, and arrested them for public intoxication; charges were later dismissed.
- The Prims sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Fourth Amendment) against Montgomery County and officers, and sued the Pavilion/Live Nation under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act plus state tort claims (assault, false imprisonment, negligence).
- The district court granted summary judgment for all defendants; the Fifth Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded on limited issues.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Assault (Janet & Eric vs. Pavilion/Harshaw) | Janet: forced into wheelchair; Eric: Harshaw grabbed his arm causing pain | Harshaw: touching was justified (Eric pushed), brief, and consented/impliedly tolerated | Janet's assault claim affirmed against dismissal; Eric's assault claim reversed and remanded (genuine factual dispute) |
| False imprisonment (Pavilion/Harshaw) | Harshaw willfully detained or instigated police detention | Harshaw: did not force detention or procure arrest; officers exercised independent discretion | Affirmed for defendants (no evidence Harshaw detained or procured arrest) |
| Negligent supervision / Respondeat superior (Pavilion) | Pavilion failed to supervise/train Harshaw and is vicariously liable for his torts | Pavilion: no breach in supervision shown; Harshaw acted appropriately | Negligent-supervision claim: affirmed for defendants (no breach). Respondeat superior as to Eric’s assault: reversed/remanded (scope of employment is disputed) |
| Qualified immunity / Probable cause for arrest (County & officers) | Prims: officers lacked probable cause; Janet’s MS explained behavior so arrest unlawful | Officers: observations (stumbling, red eyes, slurred speech), Eric failed nystagmus test, and walking home posed danger; reasonable officer could infer intoxication | Affirmed for defendants — officers entitled to qualified immunity because a reasonable officer could conclude there was probable cause |
| ADA / Rehabilitation Act claims (Janet vs. County, Pavilion, Live Nation) | County/Pavilion discriminated by reason of disability and failed to accommodate; Title III architectural/policy claims against Pavilion | Pavilion: private entity not a Title II/Rehab Act public entity; no evidence County discriminated or refused reasonable modification; no evidence removal was readily achievable or a requested modification | Affirmed for defendants — Title II and Rehab Act claims fail (no discrimination shown); Title III and architectural/policy claims against Pavilion fail (no proof of discrimination or readily achievable removal/request) |
Key Cases Cited
- Umana v. Kroger Texas, L.P., 239 S.W.3d 434 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2007) (defines assault as intentional/offensive physical contact)
- Sanchez v. Striever, 614 S.W.3d 233 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2020) (assault actionable without proof of physical injury/damages)
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Rodriguez, 92 S.W.3d 502 (Tex. 2002) (elements of false imprisonment and limits on procuring prosecution)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982) (qualified immunity standard)
- Dist. of Columbia v. Wesby, 138 S. Ct. 577 (2018) (probable cause can be found without ruling out innocent explanations)
- Resendiz v. Miller, 203 F.3d 902 (5th Cir. 2000) (probable cause for warrantless arrest standard)
- Frame v. City of Arlington, 657 F.3d 215 (5th Cir. 2011) (Title II may require reasonable modifications)
- Knight v. City Streets, L.L.C., 167 S.W.3d 580 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2005) (elements for employer liability and respondeat superior)