Sonia Garcia v. Wesley Blevins, 957 F.3d 596

Phillip Garcia Jr. was involved in altercations at a Houston restaurant; restaurant security (including HPD Officer Wesley Blevins working an approved security detail) twice broke up fights and told the groups to leave.
In the parking lot Garcia retrieved a handgun from a friend’s car; witnesses disagree about whether he ever pointed it at Blevins or others.
Blevins, told someone had a gun, saw Garcia with a pistol, ordered him to drop it, and Garcia did not comply; Garcia attempted to hand the gun to another person or concealed it behind a person.
Blevins fired multiple shots, killing Garcia; plaintiffs (Garcia’s parents) sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for excessive force and asserted municipal liability against the City.
The magistrate judge and district court found a material factual dispute about excessive force but granted summary judgment to Blevins on qualified immunity grounds (right not clearly established); plaintiffs appealed only the claim against Blevins.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Blevins used excessive force in violation of the Fourth/Fourteenth Amendments	Garcia was not an imminent threat; deadly force was excessive	Blevins confronted a suspect holding a gun who ignored commands and could quickly fire	Fact dispute exists, but court did not decide the constitutional violation because it resolved the case on immunity grounds
Whether the constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the shooting	Law was clearly established that deadly force is unlawful absent an immediate threat or flight	No controlling precedent squarely governing these facts; officer made split-second judgment confronting an armed, noncompliant person	Not clearly established; qualified immunity applies and summary judgment affirmed
Whether prior cases (e.g., Reyes/Cole) clearly govern this case	Reyes/Cole show shooting an unthreatening person is unlawful	Reyes is unpublished and inapposite; Cole is distinguishable by different factual contours	Reyes is not controlling; Cole is distinguishable; neither placed the law beyond debate
Whether this court should abandon the "clearly established" prong of qualified immunity	Plaintiffs urge reconsideration of qualified immunity approach	Panel is bound by Supreme Court and Fifth Circuit precedent governing qualified immunity	Court declines to revisit doctrine; bound to follow existing precedent

Mullenix v. Luna, 136 S. Ct. 305 (2015) (clearly established law must be specific; avoid high-level generalities)
Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (2011) (plaintiffs must identify clearly established law; qualified immunity standard)
Kisela v. Hughes, 138 S. Ct. 1148 (2018) (precedent must squarely govern the particular facts to defeat immunity)
Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (objective-reasonableness standard for excessive-force claims)
Cole v. Carson, 935 F.3d 444 (5th Cir. 2019) (en banc) (distinguishable facts where suspect made no threatening movements and was unaware of officers)
Salazar-Limon v. City of Houston, 826 F.3d 272 (5th Cir. 2016) (officers need not wait until a suspect points a weapon at them before using deadly force)
Morrow v. Meachum, 917 F.3d 870 (5th Cir. 2019) (clearly established inquiry must be framed with specificity)