Rubin v. De La Cruz
24-20015
5th Cir.Mar 11, 2025Background
- Baytown Police Officer Juan De La Cruz attempted to arrest Pamela Turner, who had active misdemeanor warrants, at her apartment complex.
- Turner resisted arrest, took De La Cruz’s taser during a ground struggle, and tased him with it.
- De La Cruz, in shock and fearing for his life, shot and killed Turner.
- Turner’s children, Chelsie Rubin and Cameron January, sued De La Cruz under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for excessive force and the City of Baytown under the ADA, Section 504, and various state laws.
- The district court granted summary judgment for De La Cruz and the City of Baytown on all federal claims and dismissed remaining state-law claims.
- On appeal, Plaintiffs challenged summary judgment only on the federal claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Qualified Immunity for Excessive Force | De La Cruz used deadly force on an unarmed, nondangerous suspect, violating precedent | No clearly established law covers facts where officer was tased | Qualified immunity applies; affirmed |
| Clearly Established Law (Fourth Amendment) | Tennessee v. Garner prohibits the use of deadly force against unarmed suspects | Garner does not apply—Turner was armed with a taser and resistant | Garner does not give fair warning here |
| ADA and Section 504 Applicability | ADA/504 claims valid because Turner had mental health issues | ADA/504 do not apply during on-the-street police incidents pre-secure | Statutes do not apply; claims dismissed |
| ADA Prima Facie & Failure to Accommodate | Officer should have recognized disability and accommodated Turner | No clear knowledge of qualifying disability or requested accommodation | No showing of disability or accommodation; dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985) (police may not use deadly force against fleeing unarmed, nondangerous suspects)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982) (qualified immunity protects officers from liability absent violation of clearly established rights)
- Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730 (2002) (clearly established law must give fair warning to officers)
- Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (2011) (clearly established rights must not be defined at a high level of generality)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (courts can address either prong of qualified immunity first)
- Mullenix v. Luna, 577 U.S. 7 (2015) (specificity required in excessive force qualified immunity analysis)