Vette v. Sanders, 989 F.3d 1154

Background

On December 31, 2017, police pursued and apprehended Eric Vette after a vehicle stop and foot chase; Sergeant Keith Sanders and his police dog Oxx arrived after initial apprehension.
Vette filed a verified (sworn) pro se complaint alleging that, after Vette was already apprehended by two officers, Sanders punched him, struck him in the face with a dog chain, and allowed Oxx to bite his right shoulder.
Sanders moved to dismiss or, alternatively, for summary judgment asserting qualified immunity; he submitted an incident report/narrative, a litigation affidavit, and arrest-scene photographs.
The district court converted the motion to one for summary judgment, treated Vette’s verified complaint as admissible evidence, concluded a jury could credit Vette’s version, and denied qualified immunity as the conduct violated clearly established Fourth Amendment law.
On interlocutory appeal Sanders invoked the collateral-order doctrine; the Tenth Circuit limited review to abstract legal questions and to the facts the district court assumed were provable at trial.
The Tenth Circuit affirmed: it accepted the district court’s assumed facts, held those facts showed an unreasonable use of force, and found the unlawfulness was clearly established by December 2017.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Appellate jurisdiction / scope of review (collateral-order)	Vette: district court properly denied qualified immunity; factual findings should stand.	Sanders: collateral-order review should permit reversal because factual record does not support plaintiff’s claims.	Court: jurisdiction limited to abstract legal questions; must accept district court’s assumed facts unless blatantly contradicted.
Can a verified complaint be treated as summary-judgment evidence?	Vette: yes — his verified complaint was sworn under penalty of perjury and met Rule 56 standards.	Sanders: No — the complaint is mere pleading and not admissible evidence; without it Vette offered no evidence.	Court: Affirmed treating the verified complaint as affidavit-equivalent; district court did not abuse discretion.
Blatant-contradiction exception to crediting plaintiff’s facts	Vette: record does not blatantly contradict his account; photographs corroborate dog bites.	Sanders: incident report, his affidavit, and photos blatantly contradict Vette’s version.	Court: exception not satisfied — testimonial contradictions insufficient; photos do not utterly discredit Vette.
Qualified immunity on excessive-force claim (violation and clearly established)	Vette: punching, striking with a dog chain, and releasing a dog after arrest were objectively unreasonable and unconstitutional.	Sanders: even accepting some contact, conduct was reasonable or insufficiently established as unlawful.	Court: On assumed facts, conduct violated Fourth Amendment and precedent made that unlawfulness clearly established; qualified immunity denied.

Key Cases Cited

Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007) (blatant-contradiction standard where video can discredit plaintiff’s version)
Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (Fourth Amendment excessive-force Graham factors)
Perea v. Baca, 817 F.3d 1198 (10th Cir. 2016) (continued force after subdual is unconstitutional; repeated taser use clearly established as unlawful)
Dixon v. Richer, 922 F.2d 1456 (10th Cir. 1991) (continuing to strike a subdued detainee is unconstitutional)
Amundsen v. Jones, 533 F.3d 1192 (10th Cir. 2008) (must accept district court’s assumed facts on interlocutory qualified-immunity appeals)
Abdulhaseeb v. Calbone, 600 F.3d 1301 (10th Cir. 2010) (verified complaint may serve as affidavit for summary-judgment purposes if meeting Rule 56 requirements)
Gelboim v. Bank of Am. Corp., 574 U.S. 405 (2015) (describing collateral-order doctrine criteria)
Emmett v. Armstrong, 973 F.3d 1127 (10th Cir. 2020) (assessing reasonableness at the moment force is used)
City of Escondido v. Emmons, 139 S. Ct. 500 (2019) (do not define clearly established law at a high level of generality)