Excessive force inquiry is confined to whether the officers or other persons were in danger at the moment of the threat that resulted in the officers' use of deadly force; the officers' actions leading up to the shooting are not relevant for the purposes of an excessive force inquiry in the Fifth Circuit.
Heck does not bar claims by an overdetained prisoner who “does not challenge the validity of his sentence, [but] merely the execution of his release; no qualified immunity for supervisor who had fair warning that his failure to address rampant overdetention would deny prisoners their immediate or near-immediate release upon conviction; two judges urge en banc review of precedent imposing liability on supervisor.
Plaintiff had posted a “joke” on Facebook claiming that deputies would shoot “the infected” with Covid on sight; was arrested for terrorism; language was protected by First Amendment, deputies not entitled to qualified immunity) (Note: this case was previously reported in the 11/21/23 Actionable Conduct report. The earlier decision was withdrawn and superseded by this opinion.
Releasing, without warning, dog on woman who was not suspected of any crime, did not oppose immediate safely threat to officers or others, and who was in need of emergency medical intervention due to self-harm, constituted an unreasonable seizure in violation of Fourth Amendment; officer entitled to qualified immunity due to absence of sufficiently similar precedent.
Clearly established in 2017 that prisoners had Due Process Clause right to timely release from prison; prisoner pled plausible claim against supervisory official who knowingly did not correct mistaken release date.
Officer entitled to qualified immunity for shooting and killing armed suspect, pursued only for alleged driving offenses, who, when officers stopped his car, ran in a manner such that his right arm was pressed against his body and could not be seen by officers; court concludes, relying on “furtive gesture” line of cases, that officers could reasonably fear he had a gun and fear for their safety; court concludes it was immaterial whether they could see a gun or whether he made any threatening motions toward them; court holds that whether suspect’s flight posed a risk to officers or public wa
Plaintiff had posted a “joke” on Facebook claiming that deputies would shoot “the infected” with Covid on sight; was arrested for terrorism; language was protected by First Amendment, deputies not entitled to qualified immunity.
Detainee died from asthma related breathing difficulties; observing detainee having breathing problems over course of six and a half hours and deciding not to request emergency assistance, where detainee had an inhaler and was within bounds of prescribed breathing treatments, was not so deliberately indifferent to medical needs as to amount to a constitutional violation.
Following slow speed chase
during which plaintiff committed traffic violations, officer shot plaintiff four times while
plaintiff was outside his truck, reaching into the door with his left hand; court at bench
trial concluded officer reasonably believed he might have been reaching for a weapon
because officer could not see his hand, despite fact that dashboard camera showed
both of plaintiff’s hands were empty, officer awarded qualified immunity, affirmed on
appeal.
Officer’s telephone call
criticizing plaintiff for talking to reporter did not violate First Amendment where plaintiff
was merely “scared,” an insufficient injury.