Eric Darden v. City of Fort Worth, Texas

Citation: 880 F.3d 722Docket: 16-11244

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit; January 24, 2018; Federal Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit addressed the case of Eric C. Darden, representing the estate of Jermaine Darden, against the City of Fort Worth and police officers W.F. Snow and J. Romero. Darden, a black man weighing approximately 340 pounds, died from a heart attack during his arrest while police executed a no-knock warrant related to drug sales. The arrest involved excessive force, with allegations that officers threw Darden to the ground, tased him, choked him, and struck him multiple times. The district court had previously granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, dismissing all claims. However, the appellate court reversed part of this decision, vacated certain aspects, and remanded the case for further proceedings. The background indicates that the police entered the residence aggressively and that video evidence captured some but not all of the events. Testimonies suggested Darden did not resist arrest or pose a threat. The court denied the petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc, withdrawing the prior opinion and substituting it with this ruling.

An incident involving Darden occurred approximately twenty-five seconds after the initial video began, showing him lying on the ground. An officer commanded him to roll over, which he did, but subsequent footage is partially obscured. Eyewitnesses reported that Officer Romero choked Darden and struck him repeatedly. Darden appeared to momentarily lift off the ground, though it was unclear if this was voluntary. Officer Snow deployed a Taser on Darden, who then seemed to push himself up. Witnesses, including Darden, indicated he had asthma and was struggling to breathe. After being tased again and pushed down, Darden went limp while being handcuffed. He was later found to have suffered a heart attack and died. Darden's estate sued Officers Snow and Romero for excessive force under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and the City for inadequate training. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants, ruling the officers did not violate clearly established law and were entitled to qualified immunity. It also found the plaintiff did not prove that Darden's death was solely due to the officers' actions. The municipal liability claims were dismissed as well, leading to an appeal. The summary judgment standard applied allows for dismissal if there is no genuine dispute of material fact.

Officers Snow and Romero's qualified immunity claims are analyzed using a two-step sequence established by the Supreme Court. First, it must be determined if the plaintiff's allegations constitute a violation of a constitutional right, and second, whether that right was "clearly established" at the time of the alleged misconduct. A right can be considered clearly established even without a directly applicable case, as long as existing precedent has made the legal question indisputable. In cases of excessive force, a constitutional violation is deemed clearly established if no reasonable officer could consider the action lawful. Courts have discretion in deciding which prong to address first, although addressing them in order can be beneficial. Once a qualified immunity defense is asserted, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate that genuine factual issues exist regarding the violation of clearly established law. During summary judgment, facts must be viewed favorably towards the non-moving party, with all reasonable inferences drawn in their favor.

To succeed in an excessive force claim, a plaintiff must demonstrate (1) injury, (2) that the injury was solely due to excessive force, and (3) that the excessive force was unreasonable. The district court ruled against the plaintiff, stating he could not prove that Darden's death was a direct result of excessive force, citing the influence of Darden's preexisting medical conditions such as coronary artery disease and chronic lung disease. The court concluded that these conditions contributed to Darden's death, leading to an error in its judgment regarding the causation of the injury.

The eggshell skull rule establishes that a tortfeasor is liable for the full extent of a victim's injury, regardless of any preexisting conditions. In the case of Darden, his existing medical issues heightened his risk of death during an encounter with police; however, evidence indicates that his heart attack and subsequent death were directly caused by the officers' use of force, including tasing and physical restraint. A medical expert opined that Darden's death should not be classified as natural.

Excessive force claims are evaluated based on the specific facts and circumstances of each case, considering factors like the severity of the alleged crime, the suspect's threat level, and whether there was resistance to arrest. The severity of the crime, in this case, was underscored by probable cause for drug-related offenses, which generally weighs in favor of the officers' actions. Contrarily, there is contention regarding whether Darden posed an immediate threat to the officers, as he was not suspected of violent crimes, did not threaten the officers, and raised his hands in a non-threatening manner upon their entry. Testimony and video evidence suggest that he did not resist arrest, leading to the potential conclusion that no reasonable officer would have perceived him as a threat. The district court's evaluation focused on Darden's alleged resistance, but the appropriateness of force must be reconsidered in light of the overall circumstances.

Officers are required to evaluate both the necessity and proportionality of the force used in encounters with suspects. In this case, video evidence shows that Darden did not comply with officers' orders to get on the ground, leading to the deployment of a taser to assist in subduing him. However, when conflicting accounts arise, particularly when one is significantly contradicted by the evidence, courts should favor the version supported by the record, as established in Scott v. Harris. The Supreme Court's standard for dismissing a nonmovant's account is stringent; a court should not disregard it unless video evidence unequivocally discredits it.

In this instance, the available videos do not clarify whether Darden complied with the officers’ commands during the twenty-five seconds between being ordered and shown lying on the floor. Witnesses claim Darden was compliant and forcefully subdued, while Officer Snow alleges he was resisting. The videos do not decisively support either narrative, leaving room for a jury to determine that a reasonable officer would not view Darden as resisting arrest. The footage indicates Darden raised his hands upon the officers' entry and later exhibited signs of distress, claiming he could not breathe. Snow contends that officers could not ascertain the truth of Darden's claims in a chaotic situation, arguing that they are not obliged to believe everything a suspect states. Nonetheless, whether reasonable officers would have regarded Darden's statements as credible is a factual matter for a jury to resolve, as courts at the summary judgment stage must accept the nonmovant’s evidence and draw all reasonable inferences in their favor. Thus, a jury could reasonably determine that Darden was attempting to breathe rather than resist arrest.

Officer Snow's actions are evaluated separately within the context of qualified immunity claims. A jury could potentially find that Snow used excessive force when he threw Darden to the ground and tased him, particularly if Darden was not actively resisting arrest. Established case law indicates that using a Taser or applying physical force against a compliant arrestee constitutes a constitutional violation. Eyewitness accounts suggest Darden complied with officers' commands and did not resist, contradicting the justification for Snow's actions. Additionally, prior rulings indicate that officers must reduce force when an arrestee is not actively resisting. There remains a material dispute regarding Darden's compliance and the reasonableness of Snow's force, leading to the conclusion that Snow is not entitled to qualified immunity, and the district court's summary judgment in his favor was erroneous. 

Regarding Officer Romero, the analysis will assess whether he used excessive force by allegedly choking, kicking, and punching Darden while handcuffing him in a prone position, noting the context of the situation and the information available to the officers at the time.

Officer Romero observed the interaction between Darden and Officer Snow before intervening, indicating he was aware of Darden's level of resistance and the force already applied. He was required to consider whether additional force was necessary, as the use of force could shift from reasonable to excessive based on the circumstances. Legal precedents establish that excessive force occurs when an officer uses violence against a non-resisting suspect. Eyewitness accounts indicated that Officer Romero choked, punched, and kicked Darden, who was allegedly compliant, while others at the scene claimed Darden could not breathe. If these accounts are accurate, Officer Romero's actions would violate established case law regarding excessive force. 

The court determined that a jury might conclude no reasonable officer would view Darden as a threat, thus deeming Romero's actions unreasonable and excessive. Officer Romero was not entitled to qualified immunity, and the district court incorrectly granted him summary judgment. Additionally, the plaintiff's claims against the City of Fort Worth regarding inadequate officer training were not addressed by the district court, as it found no constitutional violation by the officers. Since the court has now established potential violations of constitutional rights, the previous dismissals of the claims against both Officer Romero and the City were reversed, and the case was remanded for further consideration of municipal liability.