Facts
Plaintiff Amanda Carter’s minor daughter attends Live Oak High School. In February 2022, an agent of the Louisiana Department of Children and Family Services visited Carter and her husband Michael at their home to investigate a report of child abuse. After this visit, the Carters immediately drove to Live Oak to pick up their daughter. Around this time, the agent contacted the high school and ordered the school not to release the girl to the Carters’ custody. The school then began locking all exterior school doors to prevent the Carters’ entry. The school also contacted Chad Dupuy, a deputy from the Livingston Parish Sheriff’s Office assigned to the school as the school resource officer, and asked him to report to the school’s front office. The school informed Dupuy that it had been instructed not to release the girl to the Carters, and that an agent of the Department was on his way to the school.
When they arrived at Live Oak, Amanda Carter entered the front office, while her husband remained outside with Dupuy. School officials informed Carter that they had been instructed not to release the girl. Carter became angry and used profanity. The school secretary warned Carter that she would have to leave the office if she continued to use profanity. Shortly afterward, Carter stepped partially outside the office to talk to her husband. She then re-entered the office. Following Carter’s exchange with her husband, Dupuy asked Carter to step outside the office. But Carter refused to leave without her daughter. Surveillance footage depicts her gesturing angrily while speaking to Dupuy.
Dupuy grasped Carter’s arm and pulled her toward the door. When Carter refused to move, Dupuy pushed her a few inches through the office doorway. Carter sued Dupuy, along with Sheriff Jason Ard. She alleged that Dupuy’s use of force violated her Fourth Amendment rights. Dupuy and Sheriff Ard moved for summary judgment, asserting qualified immunity. The district court denied their motion. On appeal, Dupuy contends that the district court erred in denying him summary judgment as to qualified immunity. We agree and accordingly reverse.
Analysis
To overcome qualified immunity, Carter must show (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct. Courts have discretion to address these two prongs in any order. Because the first prong is
dispositive here, we need not address the second.
To prevail on an excessive force claim, Carter must show (1) an injury, (2) which resulted directly and only from the use of force that was clearly excessive, and (3) the excessiveness of which was clearly unreasonable. This inquiry is guided by the following factors: “the severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight. In evaluating these factors, courts consider the totality of the circumstances.
The force at issue here consists of Dupuy grasping Carter’s arm, attempting to drag her a few inches through the office doorway, and briefly pushing her through the doorway. Dupuy used force for, at most, four seconds. As soon as Carter was outside, Dupuy removed his hands from her back. Under the circumstances, we cannot say that such de minimis force was “clearly” excessive and unreasonable. Dupuy knew that the Department was investigating potential child abuse and that it had instructed the school not to release the girl to the Carters’ custody. Carter was visibly upset, demanded custody of her child, and refused to comply with Dupuy’s instructions. For the safety of everyone involved, Dupuy removed Carter from the office. Once Carter was outside, Dupuy ceased all force. We hold that the force used by Dupuy was de minimis, and that Carter suffered no violation of the Fourth Amendment. The district court thus erred in denying qualified immunity.
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/25/25-30213-CV0.pdf