Facts
(If you are new to 1983 actions, click here for help)
James Hughey suffered from medical conditions that occasionally caused confusion and lack of awareness. In June of 2017, in a confused state, consistent with ammonia poisoning, he entered his ex girlfriend’s sister’s home. The sister called Mason, her ex-husband, who was on duty as a deputy for Tippah County, Mississippi. The deputy went to the home, where he “kicked and beat” Hughey, injuring him severely. Hughey sued the deputy for excessive force under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The deputy moved for judgment on the pleadings, asserting qualified immunity, and the district court granted his motion. The 5th affirmed.
Analysis
Hughey argues that the district court erred in granting the deputy qualified immunity. We disagree. Qualified immunity involves a two-pronged inquiry. First, we ask whether the facts, taken in the light most favorable to the party asserting the injury, show the officer’s conduct violated a federal right. Second, we ask whether the right in question was clearly established at the time of the violation. We may address the two prongs in any order, and defendants are entitled to qualified immunity if the plaintiff fails either prong.
Regarding the first prong, to state a violation of the Fourth Amendment prohibition on excessive force, the plaintiff must allege: (1) an injury that (2) resulted directly and only from the use of force that was excessive to the need, and (3) that was objectively unreasonable. The objective reasonableness of the force, in turn, depends on the facts and circumstances of the particular case, such that the need for force determines how much force is constitutionally permissible. Specifically, the court should consider 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.
Hughey’s live complaint does not plead sufficient facts to support an inference that the deputy’s use of force was excessive to the need. He does not allege any facts regarding the nature or severity of the crime at issue. Nor does he allege that he was not posing a threat to the deputy or the occupants of the home he entered or that he was not resisting arrest. Although we take as true the facts alleged in it, we cannot assume facts not alleged, so we cannot assume that Hughey was not committing a severe crime, posing a threat, or resisting arrest, in the absence of any factual allegations. Hughey’s claim relies almost exclusively on the extent of his injuries, but in the absence of contextual factual allegations, injury alone is insufficient to state an excessive-force claim.
Nevertheless, we need not determine whether Hughey satisfied the first prong of qualified immunity because he has not even tried to make the requisite showing as to the second prong. Here, Hughey neither cites controlling authority nor attempts to identify a “robust consensus” of persuasive authority that clearly establishes the law in his favor under the facts and circumstances alleged in the complaint. Nor has he demonstrated that this is the “rare” case in which an “obvious” constitutional violation occurred.
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/25/25-60232-CV0.pdf