Tolan v. Cotton
134 S. Ct. 1861
| SCOTUS | 2014Background
- In the early morning of Dec. 31, 2008, Bellaire officer John Edwards mistyped a license plate, causing his system to flag a stopped vehicle as stolen; Robert Tolan and a cousin exited that vehicle at Tolan’s parents’ home.
- Edwards ordered Tolan and his cousin to lie face-down on the front porch; Tolan’s parents came out and identified the car and Tolan as family property and resident.
- Sergeant Jeffrey Cotton arrived, ordered Tolan’s mother to the garage, and—per some testimony—grabbed or pushed her, causing bruises according to the mother and photographic evidence; Cotton disputed the degree of force.
- Tolan (15–20 feet away) reacted verbally—"Get your fucking hands off my mom"—then rose (disputed: to his knees per Tolan, to his feet/crouch per officers); Cotton drew his pistol and fired three shots, one striking and seriously injuring Tolan.
- Tolan sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging excessive force (Fourth Amendment). The district court granted summary judgment for Cotton; the Fifth Circuit affirmed on qualified-immunity grounds without resolving disputed facts in favor of Tolan.
- The Supreme Court vacated and remanded, holding the Fifth Circuit failed to view disputed factual evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant at summary judgment and thus erred in its qualified-immunity analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Cotton used excessive force (constitutional violation) | Tolan: shooting was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment given he was unarmed, 15–20 ft away, and reacted to his mother being grabbed | Cotton: reasonably believed Tolan posed an immediate threat warranting deadly force | Court did not decide merits; remanded because genuine factual disputes must be credited to Tolan at summary judgment |
| Whether Cotton is entitled to qualified immunity | Tolan: factual disputes could show a clearly established right was violated | Cotton: even if force was excessive, no clearly established law put him on notice he acted unconstitutionally | Court held Fifth Circuit erred by resolving factual disputes against Tolan when assessing clearly established law; remanded for reconsideration |
| Proper summary-judgment standard in qualified-immunity cases | Tolan: courts must view all evidence and reasonable inferences in nonmovant’s favor when evaluating both prongs | Cotton: (implicit) courts may assess reasonableness where record supports officer’s account | Court: reaffirmed that courts cannot resolve genuine factual disputes at summary judgment and must construe facts in favor of nonmovant |
| Whether the Fifth Circuit properly defined the factual context for "clearly established" inquiry | Tolan: factual context must be based on nonmovant’s evidence, not on credited disputed facts | Cotton: relied on panel’s factual determinations (lighting, mother’s demeanor, Tolan’s movement) | Court: vacated because the panel improperly credited Cotton’s version on key facts when defining context for clearly established law |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard requires viewing evidence in light most favorable to nonmovant)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (two-pronged qualified-immunity framework; first prong: whether officer violated a constitutional right)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (excessive-force claims evaluated under Fourth Amendment objective-reasonableness test)
- Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (use of deadly force against fleeing suspects; balancing test for seizure by force)
- Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730 (clearly established law and fair-warning principle)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (courts may exercise discretion in the order of qualified-immunity prongs)
- Brosseau v. Haugen, 543 U.S. 194 (qualified-immunity summary reversal where lower court misapplied standard)
- Deville v. Marcantel, 567 F.3d 156 (5th Cir. precedent on deadly-force reasonable belief standard)