Randy Cole v. Michael Hunter
802 F.3d 752
| 5th Cir. | 2015Background
- On Oct. 25, 2010, 17‑year‑old Ryan Cole, suffering from OCD, was seen carrying two handguns; he emerged from woods with a gun held to his own head and was shot by Officers Hunter and Cassidy, sustaining severe injuries and lifelong disabilities.
- Officers Hunter, Cassidy, and Carson conferred after the shooting and later gave statements saying Ryan was warned and pointed his gun at Officer Hunter; physical evidence and recordings allegedly contradict those statements.
- Based on the officers’ statements Ryan was charged with aggravated assault on a public servant, placed under house arrest, and later had the assault charge dismissed; he received deferred adjudication for unlawful carrying.
- The Coles sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983: (1) excessive force against Hunter and Cassidy; (2) fabrication/concealment of evidence and related Fourteenth and Fourth Amendment claims against Carson for causing false prosecution. Defendants asserted qualified and absolute immunity.
- The district court denied (a) summary judgment to Hunter and Cassidy on qualified immunity for excessive force and (b) Carson’s motion to dismiss the fabrication/due process claim; appeals were taken and consolidated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Excessive force — qualified immunity (Hunter & Cassidy) | Cole: shooting was objectively unreasonable because Ryan had a gun to his own head, was unaware of officers, and merely turned left; no immediate deadly threat. | Officers: Ryan posed an immediate threat when he turned; deadly force therefore reasonable; immunity applies. | Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because material fact disputes exist; district court’s denial of summary judgment stands (cannot resolve qualified immunity as matter of law). |
| Fabrication of evidence — due process (Carson) | Coles: Carson lied and concealed evidence to frame Ryan for aggravated assault to justify the shooting — alleged intentional fabrication and conspiracy. | Carson: qualified and absolute immunity; statements to investigators and grand jury protected; no clearly established due process right here. | AFFIRMED as to due process fabrication claim: deliberate fabrication to frame someone can violate substantive due process and was clearly established in 2010. |
| Fourth Amendment false arrest / Brady claims (Carson) | Coles: fabricated evidence led to charges, house arrest, legal fees; Fourth Amendment/Brady violations. | Carson: probable cause existed for unlawful carrying; Brady inapplicable absent trial; qualified immunity. | REVERSED as to Fourth Amendment and Brady claims: pleadings show probable cause for unlawful carrying and Brady not implicated (no trial), so Carson entitled to qualified immunity on those theories. |
| Absolute testimonial immunity (Carson) | Coles: many alleged lies occurred pre‑charging to investigators and influenced charging decision; claims can be pleaded without reliance on grand jury testimony. | Carson: Rehberg grants absolute immunity for grand jury witnesses, so all conduct tied to testimony is immune. | Court rejects absolute immunity for investigation‑stage fabrication; absolute immunity applies to grand jury testimony/prep but not to investigative lies intended to procure charges. Defendants bear burden to show absolute immunity. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985) (deadly force unconstitutional absent immediate substantial threat)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (objective‑reasonableness standard for force)
- Luna v. Mullenix, 773 F.3d 712 (5th Cir. 2014) (qualified immunity analysis in deadly‑force context)
- Castellano v. Fragozo, 352 F.3d 939 (5th Cir. 2003) (fabrication of evidence can implicate constitutional protections beyond Fourth Amendment)
- Rehberg v. Paulk, 566 U.S. 356 (2012) (absolute immunity for grand jury witnesses but not for investigatory fabrication)
- Ricciuti v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth., 124 F.3d 123 (2d Cir. 1997) (fabrication of evidence forwarded to prosecutors can violate due process)