55 F.4th 1045
5th Cir.2022Background
- Vardeman returned to Hobby Airport to pick up family, parked in the passenger pickup area, and began loading luggage when officers repeatedly ordered him to move.
- Officer Rickey Simpson approached very close, used profane threats, pushed Vardeman’s daughter who intervened, and after Vardeman pushed back, Simpson struck Vardeman with a closed fist, knocking him to the ground and then stood over him menacingly.
- Vardeman sued Simpson and the City of Houston under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment excessive force), plus related state-law claims; the district court dismissed Simpson on the pleadings and dismissed the City for failure to plead a municipal policy and on immunity grounds.
- The district court relied on the view that Simpson’s conduct sought only to make Vardeman move along (not to seize him); Vardeman appealed the § 1983 rulings.
- The Fifth Circuit reviewed de novo under the Twombly/Iqbal pleading standard to decide whether the complaint plausibly alleged (1) a Fourth Amendment seizure/excessive force claim against Simpson and (2) a Monell claim against the City.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Simpson's punching and hovering constituted a Fourth Amendment seizure/excessive force | Vardeman: the punch that knocked him down and Simpson's menacing hovering would make a reasonable person feel not free to leave, so a seizure occurred and force was excessive | Simpson/City: the officer only tried to make Vardeman move along; the conduct was not a seizure and did not prolong the encounter | Court: Reversed dismissal as to Simpson — complaint plausibly alleges a seizure by force and an excessive-force claim survives the pleadings stage |
| Whether City of Houston is liable under § 1983 (Monell) for Simpson's conduct | Vardeman: alleged prior incidents and practices show a pattern/custom or failure to train that caused the violation | City: prior incidents are unrelated and a single incident cannot establish municipal policy; no deliberate indifference or relevant pattern pleaded | Court: Affirmed dismissal of City — complaint fails to plausibly plead a municipal policy, custom, or pattern |
Key Cases Cited
- Torres v. Madrid, 141 S. Ct. 989 (force can effect a Fourth Amendment seizure; seizure lasts while force is applied)
- California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621 (physical application of force constitutes a seizure even if restraint is ultimately unsuccessful)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (not all police-citizen encounters are seizures; seizure occurs when liberty is restrained)
- United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544 (seizure when a reasonable person would not feel free to leave; consider totality of circumstances)
- Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429 (objective test: evaluate officer conduct from reasonable person perspective)
- United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109 (brief but meaningful interferences can constitute seizures)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Soldal v. Cook Cnty., 506 U.S. 56 (scope of Fourth Amendment protections and applicability to property/person seizures)
- Sweetin v. City of Texas City, 48 F.4th 387 (5th Cir. 2022) (municipal official subject to § 1983 when acting within assigned functions or beyond authority)