Facts
(If you are new to 1983 actions, click here for help)
In May 2022, Yoni Perdomo worked as a subcontractor on a residential remodeling in League City, Texas. The general contractor on the project terminated Perdomo’s employment in the middle of the project. After his termination, Perdomo returned to the project site, allegedly to retrieve his tools and some unpaid wages. When the general contractor refused to tender payment to Perdomo and demanded that Perdomo stop trespassing on the property, Perdomo called the police. Officers Trevor Rector and Tanner Surrat arrived at the scene shortly thereafter.
After briefly speaking with the general contractor, who requested that the Officers remove Perdomo from the property, Officer Rector approached Perdomo and offered to give Perdomo a ride away from the property. Perdomo ignored the offer. Following a brief exchange during which Officer Rector insulted Perdomo and Perdomo became increasingly frustrated, Officer Rector warned Perdomo that he would go to jail if he returned to the property. According to body camera footage of the incident, Perdomo responded by saying “Ok, go to jail,” before putting his hands behind his back, turning around, and slamming his back twice into Officer Rector’s chest.
After the second time Perdomo made contact with Officer Rector, Officer Rector tackled Perdomo to the ground. During the tackle, Perdomo hit his forehead on the concrete sidewalk. Perdomo began to convulse and bleed from his right ear. When the Officers observed Perdomo’s condition, they called an ambulance within a few seconds and moved Perdomo from the sidewalk to a nearby patch of grass. Thirteen minutes later, an ambulance arrived and took Perdomo to the hospital. Perdomo alleges that, as a result of his injury, he suffered a stroke, contusions, and several other lasting injuries.
Perdomo filed suit in federal court against Officer Rector and Officer Surratt bringing a collection of claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court dismissed all of Perdomo’s claims finding that the body camera footage blatantly contradicted Perdomo’s account of the facts and that, based on the events depicted in the video, qualified immunity shielded the Officers from liability. Perdomo timely appealed. The 5th affirmed.
Analysis
Before reviewing Perdomo’s claims, this court considers whether Perdomo’s factual allegations align with the video evidence. They do not. Perdomo contends that, in the moments before Officer Rector tackled him, he briskly walked backward and made incidental contact with Officer Rector while behaving in a submissive and compliant manner. This description deviates significantly from the events captured on video. As the district court observed in rejecting Perdomo’s allegations, the video evidence shows a visibly aggravated Perdomo place his hands behind his back unprompted, turn, and slam the back of his shoulder into Officer Rector’s chest twice, knocking Officer Rector backward. Perdomo’s conduct in the video appears to be neither submissive nor compliant, so like the district court, this court concludes that the video evidence blatantly contradicts Perdomo’s complaint.
Having rejected Perdomo’s factual allegations in favor of the video evidence, disposing of Perdomo’s claims is straightforward. Against the Officers, Perdomo asserts claims for excessive force, false arrest, unreasonable seizure, deliberate indifference to medical needs, and assault. We review each set of claims in turn.
Perdomo’s several claims against Officer Rector and Officer Surratt run headlong into qualified immunity. Perdomo fails to successfully allege that the Officers violated his statutory or constitutional rights. As the district court observed, Perdomo’s forceful contact with Officer Rector constituted felony assault. Thus, all three of the Graham factors support the reasonableness of the Officers’ actions. Perdomo was engaged in a felony, threatened the safety of the Officers, and was not acting in a compliant manner. Moreover, the entire incident, from the moment Perdomo first pushed his shoulders into Officer Rector to the moment Perdomo became visible on the ground, lasted five seconds. The brevity of the encounter left Officer Rector with no time to pursue alternatives or gauge the risk that Perdomo posed. Perdomo has not successfully alleged that the Officers used excessive force.
Nor has Perdomo adequately alleged that the Officers conducted a false arrest or unreasonable seizure. The Fourth Amendment permits arrests supported by probable cause. The Officers had probable cause to believe that Perdomo had committed felony assault or had unlawfully interfered with a police officer because they witnessed Perdomo commit those offenses. Based on that probable cause, the Officers were entitled to arrest or seize Perdomo.
Next, Perdomo contends that the Officers improperly denied him medical care under the Fourteenth Amendment. To properly state such a claim, Perdomo must allege facts showing that officers acted with deliberate indifference to his medical needs. Showing deliberate indifference entails alleging that (1) an official was aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and (2) the official actually drew that inference. Perdomo fails to plausibly allege that these elements were present here. The Officers called an ambulance almost immediately upon observing Perdomo’s injuries, and the ambulance arrived only a few minutes later. While awaiting the ambulance, the Officers did move Perdomo a few feet, which supposedly risked aggravating Perdomo’s head injury. Other than conclusory allegations that these risks were obvious, Perdomo alleges no specific facts indicating that the Officers were aware of these risks. Because awareness is a precondition to deliberate indifference, Perdomo has not
sufficiently pled that the Officers acted with deliberate indifference.
Based on the events described in Perdomo’s allegations and depicted in the video footage, Officer Rector’s split-second decision to subdue a noncompliant Perdomo did not violate Perdomo’s rights. We AFFIRM.
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/25/25-40106-CV0.pdf