Week of May 24, 2021

Plaintiff was unarmed, injured, covered in his own blood, hanging from second-story window by his hands with feet dangling when officer punched him repeated in head with closed fist; “right of an injured, visibly unarmed suspect to be free from temporarily paralyzing force while positioned at a height that carries with it a risk of serious injury or death” was clearly established by “robust consensus of cases”; second officer who tased plaintiff after he fell to ground and was unconscious violated his clearly established right to be free from excessive force in the form of being tased while

Court applies previously recognized right to be free of judicial deception and fabrication of evidence in violation of due process rights in civil child custody cases; requires showing that defendant deliberately or recklessly made false statements or omissions that were material to a finding; holds that allegations were sufficient to establish that defendants obtained authorization for children’s medical examinations with reckless disregard for truth with respect to whether parents had been contacted.

Court does not insist upon intent-to-harm standard of Co. of Sacramento v. Lewis, applies standard of “criminal recklessness,” which it equates to “deliberate indifference” to high-speed driving by officer that caused accident; holds that this standard is appropriate in non-emergency situation where officer had actual knowledge of unjustifiable risk to human life and consciously disregarded risk; concluding that officer’s reckless conduct, unjustified by emergency, allowed the inference that he subjectively knew of the risk he created and consciously disregarded it.

Issue of fact precluded summary judgment on claim that officer ignored plaintiff’s complaint that handcuffs were too tight; fact that a different officer later loosened cuffs did not absolve first officer of liability.

Court unjustifiably overrules district court, which found that issues of fact precluded summary judgment, and affords qualified immunity to officers for (1) take down of unarmed plaintiff who had been pulled over for non-violent traffic offense, based on “slight movement” and “tension” in plaintiff’s arm, which would have been insufficient but for so-called aggravating factors that plaintiff continued driving for a couple of minutes after officer engaged lights and siren, incident occurred in “high-crime area,” plaintiff was taller than officers, plaintiff expressed anger and frustration, s

Plaintiff was unarmed, injured, covered in his own blood, hanging from second-story window by his hands with feet dangling when officer punched him repeated in head with closed fist; “right of an injured, visibly unarmed suspect to be free from temporarily paralyzing force while positioned at a height that carries with it a risk of serious injury or death” was clearly established by “robust consensus of cases”; second officer who tased plaintiff after he fell to ground and was unconscious violated his clearly established right to be free from excessive force in the form of being tased while

Court awards qualified immunity to officers for shooting woman who called 911 and stated she had a gun and would shoot anyone who came to her residence; when police arrived woman came out of her house with BB handgun that resembled a .45 caliber pistol in her right hand, began to raise her hand, walked to her car, leaned on its hood and turned back toward her house; officers began firing when she first began to raise gun and continued until she collapsed after turning toward her house; she had placed gun on hood of car but that was not visible to officers; video was recorded by dashcam; dis

Use of deadly force against suspect who repeatedly ignored commands such as to show her hands, place hands on hood of vehicle, or get down, and who then reached her hand behind her back toward waistband, which officer perceived to be a reach for a weapon, did not violate clearly established rights.

Fact disputes precluded summary judgment as to whether decedent was resisting or posed threat of serious physical injury so as to warrant prone maximal-restraint position; despite Scott v. Harris, 5th Circuit treats deadly force as a “special subset of excessive force claims”; prone maximal-restraint position poses substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury and thus is deadly force; unnecessarily placing person in prone maximal-restraint position is a violation of clearly established rights foreclosing qualified immunity.

Hostage from bank robbery was shot ten times by police; court rejects officer’s motion for summary judgment in which he claimed he did not intend to shoot her and never saw her, “court may not simply accept what may be a self-serving account by the police officer”; plaintiff posed no threat because she had raised her hands in surrender; circumstantial evidence was sufficient to warrant finding officer intended to shoot her: fact that she was repeatedly struck by bullets strong implied she was in his line of sight, it was broad daylight, fact she was struck so often makes it hard to believe