Randy Cole v. Michael Hunter
935 F.3d 444
5th Cir.2019Background
- On Oct. 25, 2010, Sachse officers Hunter and Cassidy encountered 17‑year‑old Ryan Cole walking near train tracks with a 9mm handgun; facts about what they knew and what Cole did are sharply disputed.
- District court (drawing inferences for plaintiffs) found Cole emerged from brush unaware of officers, holding the gun to his head, not pointing it at officers, and was shot without warning; a reasonable jury could find he posed no immediate threat.
- Officers testified (and prosecutors originally accepted) that Cole turned toward Officer Hunter and pointed his gun, prompting defensive gunfire; later ballistics and stippling indicated Cole shot himself.
- The Coles sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for Fourth Amendment excessive force and for claims based on fabricated evidence (Fourteenth Amendment false charges, Fourth Amendment fabrication, and Brady violation).
- The district court denied dismissal/summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds; a Fifth Circuit panel split decisions in Cole I, the Supreme Court vacated and remanded in light of Mullenix, and the case was reheard en banc.
- En banc Fifth Circuit: affirmed denial of summary judgment on the excessive‑force claim (left for jury), affirmed denial on Fourteenth Amendment false‑charge claim, and reversed dismissal denials as to two fabrication‑of‑evidence claims on qualified immunity grounds, remanding for trial consistent with opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Cole) | Defendant's Argument (Hunter/Cassidy) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether qualified immunity could be resolved at summary judgment on excessive‑force claim | Facts viewed for plaintiffs show Cole posed no immediate threat, no warning was given, so use of deadly force was unconstitutional | Officers say record supports that Cole turned and pointed a gun at an officer and that they reasonably perceived an immediate deadly threat | Court: viewing facts in plaintiffs’ favor, genuine disputes preclude resolving immunity; denial of summary judgment affirmed and appeal dismissed (jury must decide facts) |
| Whether Tennessee v. Garner and precedent plainly established unlawfulness of shooting here | Cole: Garner (and Fifth Circuit precedents) clearly established one cannot shoot a non‑threatening, mentally disturbed person holding gun to his head who was unaware of officers and received no warning | Officers: Garner and Supreme Court precedents do not clearly govern this fact pattern; Mullenix and related cases counsel caution—no clearly established rule that would put officers on notice | Court: Under Mullenix and viewing disputed facts for plaintiffs, court finds this an "obvious" case under Garner and existing precedent sufficient to deny immunity at summary judgment (as to excessive‑force claim) |
| Whether fabrication‑of‑evidence claims (Fourth Amendment, Brady) survive qualified immunity at pleading stage | Coles: fabricated narrative and failure to disclose ballistics undermined prosecutions and violated rights | Officers: qualified immunity shields them from those claims | Court: affirmed denial for Fourteenth Amendment false‑charge claim; reversed and held qualified immunity applicable to Fourth Amendment and Brady fabrication claims (per prior panel holdings reinstated where Mullenix inapplicable) |
| Scope of appellate review on interlocutory denial of qualified immunity | Coles: appellate court must accept district court’s factual findings and inferences for non‑movant; jurisdiction limited to legal significance of those facts | Officers: urge appellate consideration of alternate facts and invoking Mullenix to reverse | Held: appellate jurisdiction limited — court must take plaintiff‑favorable facts; it cannot resolve genuine factual disputes, so it affirmed denial as to excessive‑force claim and dismissed that interlocutory appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985) (deadly force permissible only if suspect poses immediate threat; warning required where feasible)
- Mullenix v. Luna, 136 S. Ct. 305 (2015) (qualified‑immunity analysis requires particularized, fact‑specific clearly established law; cautions against overbroad extension of Garner)
- White v. Pauly, 137 S. Ct. 548 (2017) (clearly‑established inquiry must focus on facts knowable to officers; courts must avoid defining rights at high level of generality)
- Kisela v. Hughes, 138 S. Ct. 1148 (2018) (use of force in split‑second, dangerous circumstances did not violate clearly established law where officer reasonably perceived imminent threat)
- Tolan v. Cotton, 572 U.S. 650 (2014) (on summary judgment courts must credit the non‑movant’s version of disputed facts; appellate courts must not reject plaintiff‑favorable evidence)
- Baker v. Putnal, 75 F.3d 190 (5th Cir. 1996) (remanded excessive‑force claim where factual disputes about whether suspect posed threat and whether warning was given precluded summary judgment)