20 F.4th 1020
5th Cir.2021Background
- Anthony Timpa called 911 during a mental-health episode; officers were dispatched to a Crisis Intervention Training (CIT) call and were told he was a diagnosed schizophrenic off medication.
- Timpa was initially handcuffed by private security, barefoot on a grass boulevard; DPD Officers and paramedics arrived and used a five-person takedown and restraints.
- Officer Dillard placed a knee on Timpa’s upper back and maintained a prone, bodyweight restraint for about 14 minutes (about 9 minutes after Timpa was effectively subdued); paramedics were present.
- Timpa became nonresponsive during the restraint; removed from the scene to a gurney; autopsy ruled homicide—cocaine, excited delirium, and restraint-related (positional/mechanical) asphyxia implicated.
- Plaintiffs sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for excessive (including deadly) force against Dillard and for bystander liability against four other officers; the district court granted qualified immunity to the officers.
- The Fifth Circuit reversed as to the excessive-force claim against Dillard and reversed denial of bystander claims for Mansell, Vasquez, and Dominguez; affirmed summary judgment for Rivera (who was absent).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Excessive force (Dillard kneeling on back/prone restraint) | Kneeling with bodyweight on a subdued arrestee for prolonged time violated the Fourth Amendment | Force was reasonable given intermittent resistance and safety concerns; qualified immunity applies | Reversed summary judgment; jury could find force objectively unreasonable once Timpa was subdued |
| Deadly force characterization | Prone restraint + bodyweight on an obese, exhausted, cocaine-affected (excited delirium) person created substantial risk of death | Plaintiffs lack sufficient evidence to show the force was deadly | Jury could find the force was deadly given risk factors and duration; triable issue remains |
| Qualified immunity / clearly established law | Fifth Circuit precedent made it clearly established that continuing force on a subdued arrestee is unlawful | No controlling precedent clearly forbade the specific conduct (prone + bodyweight) | Law was clearly established by Aug 2016; Dillard not entitled to qualified immunity for continued force |
| Bystander liability (Mansell, Vasquez, Dominguez, Rivera) | Officers present who knew of or observed the excessive force and had opportunity to intervene are liable | Some officers were absent or lacked a reasonable chance to intervene | Summary judgment denied as to Mansell, Vasquez, Dominguez (triable issues); affirmed for Rivera (absent; no reasonable opportunity) |
Key Cases Cited
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (use-of-force reasonableness test)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (qualified immunity standard)
- Bush v. Strain, 513 F.3d 492 (5th Cir.) (continued force on subdued arrestee unconstitutional)
- Carroll v. Ellington, 800 F.3d 154 (5th Cir.) (clearly established that force on handcuffed, subdued suspect may be excessive)
- Cooper v. Brown, 844 F.3d 517 (5th Cir.) (continued force after compliance—K9 bite—objectively unreasonable)
- Darden v. City of Fort Worth, 880 F.3d 722 (5th Cir.) (prone/bodyweight force on obese, nonresisting arrestee unconstitutional)
- Aguirre v. City of San Antonio, 995 F.3d 395 (5th Cir.) (maximal prone restraint can violate the Fourth Amendment)
- Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730 (prior decisions can give reasonable warning that conduct is unconstitutional)
- Lombardo v. City of St. Louis, 141 S. Ct. 2239 (per curiam) (rejects per se rule that prone restraint is always reasonable when resistance appears)