Wilcox v. McEvoy, 6:22-cv-00388-JCB-JDL

Plaintiff Corey Wilcox, a pretrial detainee at Gregg County Jail, sued Deputy David McEvoy under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming excessive force on Aug. 25, 2022; he sought $50,000 in damages.
Incident captured on jail video: McEvoy opened a food slot to hand a kiosk to Wilcox; Wilcox extended his arm through the slot and reached toward McEvoy; McEvoy briefly swatted Wilcox’s hand and later lifted the slot for ~5 seconds to push the arm back.
Wilcox continued to resist by grabbing the windowsill; another officer later arrived and Wilcox voluntarily withdrew his hand and received the kiosk; a small bruise was noted but no medical treatment was recorded.
Defendant submitted declarations (McEvoy, Jailer Myra Anderson, Jail Administrator Jeff Callaway) and the video; Wilcox did not respond to the summary judgment motion after receiving an extension.
The court treated Wilcox as a pretrial detainee (Fourteenth Amendment standard) and found the force minimal and objectively reasonable given safety concerns about an open food slot.
Recommendation: grant summary judgment for McEvoy on qualified immunity grounds and dismiss Wilcox’s excessive-force claim with prejudice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Excessive use of force (Fourteenth Amendment)	McEvoy struck and tried to close the slot, causing physical and emotional harm	Force was minimal and reasonable to prevent safety risks from an open food slot; Wilcox resisted orders	Use of force was objectively reasonable; no viable excessive-force claim
Qualified immunity	Wilcox contends constitutional rights were violated (so immunity should not apply)	McEvoy says his actions did not violate a clearly established right and were objectively reasonable	Qualified immunity applies; summary judgment recommended for McEvoy
Applicable constitutional standard	Wilcox invoked Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments	Defendant: Wilcox was pretrial, so Eighth Amendment inapplicable	Court held Eighth does not apply; claim analyzed under Fourteenth (Kingsley standard)

Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (qualified immunity protects officials unless they violated clearly established rights)
Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (courts may choose order of qualified-immunity prongs)
Ashcroft v. al–Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (articulates qualified-immunity framework)
Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 576 U.S. 389 (pretrial-detainee excessive-force claim uses an objective-reasonableness standard)
Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (recognizes legitimate security interests in detention settings)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard; nonmovant must show genuine dispute)
Welsh v. Correct Care Recovery Sols., [citation="845 F. App'x 311"] (affirmed no excessive-force claim where detainee resisted and injuries were de minimis)
Collier v. Montgomery, 569 F.3d 214 (use-of-force not excessive where arrestee resisted)