Randy Cole v. Michael Hunter, 905 F.3d 334

On Oct. 25, 2010 Sachse officers Carson, Cassidy, and Hunter pursued 17‑year‑old Ryan Cole, who was later found holding a handgun to his head in brush near railroad tracks; Cole was shot and severely injured.
Cassidy and Hunter fired at Cole; medical and ballistics evidence indicated one fatal head wound was self‑inflicted and other rounds struck Cole’s arm/torso. Eyewitness and officer statements conflicted about whether Cole pointed the gun at officers or held it to his head.
The Coles sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging (a) Fourth Amendment excessive‑force claims against Cassidy and Hunter, and (b) Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment claims for fabrication of evidence against all three officers.
District court denied officers’ immunity motions; this Court initially affirmed denial (except as to one fabrication claim), the Supreme Court vacated and remanded for consideration in light of Mullenix v. Luna.
On remand the Fifth Circuit (Higginbotham, J.) limited review to whether law was “clearly established” as to Cassidy and Hunter’s use of deadly force; the court affirmed denial of summary judgment because, taking disputed facts in plaintiffs’ favor, no reasonable perceived threat existed and Tennessee v. Garner’s no‑threat rule was clearly established.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Cassidy and Hunter violated Cole’s Fourth Amendment right by using deadly force	Cole: Officers used excessive force when they fired while Cole posed no immediate threat (he faced away and held the gun to his head)	Cassidy & Hunter: Qualified immunity — officer reasonably perceived a threat and law was not clearly established to preclude their conduct	Denied summary judgment; genuine fact disputes and, viewed for plaintiffs, no reasonable perceived threat; Garner’s no‑threat rule was clearly established so immunity not available at this stage
Whether Carson’s Fourth Amendment fabrication claim was sufficiently pleaded	Coles: Carson participated in fabricating evidence to justify the seizure/charges	Carson: Motion to dismiss — allegations insufficient to state a Fourth Amendment fabrication claim	Prior panel: dismissed Fourth Amendment fabrication claim as inadequately pleaded; this disposition was reinstated on remand
Whether Carson’s Fourteenth Amendment due process fabrication claim is viable and clearly established	Coles: Fabrication of evidence deprived Cole of due process (caused prosecution and pretrial restraints)	Carson: Qualified/absolute immunity; claim insufficient or not clearly established	Court previously held the Fourteenth Amendment claim was plausibly pleaded and involved clearly established law; that part is reinstated (not reexamined on remand)

Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (qualified immunity standard for government officials)
Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (describing two‑step qualified immunity inquiry)
Tolan v. Cotton, 134 S. Ct. 1861 (summary judgment review requires viewing facts in plaintiff’s favor)
Mullenix v. Luna, 136 S. Ct. 305 (Supreme Court: clearly established law must be sufficiently specific; warns against overly general rules)
Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (bright‑line rule: deadly force unconstitutional where suspect poses no immediate threat to officers or others)
Kisela v. Hughes, 138 S. Ct. 1148 (precedent clarifying when use of force is considered clearly established)