Rojas v. Anderson, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 13839

Background

At ~3:00 a.m. Officer Anderson stopped Oliver Rojas, visibly intoxicated, and two cousins struggling to enter a house; Rojas and relatives said he lived there and a cousin produced a license listing that address.
Anderson grabbed Rojas’s arm to take him to a detox facility; Rojas pulled free, ran into the house, officers followed, and Rojas was arrested for attempted assault on a peace officer after a physical struggle.
After being placed in a patrol car and continuing to resist by kicking, officers removed the handcuffed Rojas, tied his feet, and (according to Rojas) picked him up and dropped him face-first on asphalt, causing chin laceration and fractured mandible.
Rojas sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for unlawful seizure (arrest/warrantless home entry) and excessive force; district court granted summary judgment to defendants based on qualified immunity.
On appeal the Tenth Circuit reviewed de novo but applied the two-part qualified immunity framework and affirmed because Rojas (through counsel) failed to meet his burden to show a constitutional violation and that the right was clearly established.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Probable cause for arrest (attempted assault on an officer)	Rojas: no attempted assault occurred; arrest lacked probable cause	Anderson: Rojas lunged and officer reasonably interpreted movement as attempt to strike	Court: Affirmed qualified immunity; plaintiff failed to carry burden to show no probable cause / clearly established right violated
Warrantless entry/seizure inside home	Rojas: lived at house; officers could have verified residency, so entry/seizure was unlawful	Defendants: exigent circumstances and concern for safety justified entry/seizure	Court: Did not reach adverse legal finding because plaintiff failed to show clearly established violation; qualified immunity affirmed
Excessive force for alleged intentional drop onto pavement	Rojas: defendants dropped him face-first after feet were tied, causing serious injury	Defendants: injury occurred accidentally while removing him from patrol car; force was reasonable	Court: Plaintiff’s briefing did not adequately show a Fourth Amendment violation or that the right was clearly established; qualified immunity affirmed
Burden and standard on qualified immunity at summary judgment	Rojas: disputes factual issues; asks reversal on factual grounds	Defendants: qualified immunity applies unless plaintiff meets two‑part burden; district court’s factual findings lawful	Court: Emphasized plaintiff’s burden to show constitutional violation and clearly established law; because plaintiff failed to brief those elements, the traditional summary‑judgment burden never shifted and qualified immunity stands

Key Cases Cited

Clark v. Edmunds, 513 F.3d 1219 (10th Cir.) (standard of review and modified summary judgment approach for qualified immunity)
Martinez v. Carr, 479 F.3d 1292 (10th Cir.) (plaintiff bears heavy two‑part burden to overcome qualified immunity)
Thomas v. Durastanti, 607 F.3d 655 (10th Cir.) (plaintiff must cite authority showing right was clearly established)
United States v. Martin, 613 F.3d 1295 (10th Cir.) (probable cause assessed under totality of circumstances)
Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. 366 (2003) (probable cause judged from objectively reasonable officer perspective)
Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007) (view facts in light most favorable to nonmoving party for summary judgment; qualified immunity context)
Romero v. Fay, 45 F.3d 1472 (10th Cir.) (definition of probable cause for arrest)
Thomson v. Salt Lake Cnty., 584 F.3d 1304 (10th Cir.) (discussion of burdens and interlocutory review limits in qualified immunity cases)
Dixon v. Richer, 922 F.2d 1456 (10th Cir.) (excessive force can be unreasonable where force used after suspect subdued)
Smith v. McCord, 707 F.3d 1161 (10th Cir.) (counsel’s failure to present argument can cause forfeiture and loss of otherwise viable claims)