Facts
(If you are new to 1983 actions, click here for help)
On February 6, 2019, Alejandro Martinez was walking home when Officer Cantu of the City of Rosenberg Police Department stopped him for walking on the wrong side of the street in violation of the Texas Transportation Code (Tex. Trans. Code § 552.006(b) – If a sidewalk is not provided, a pedestrian walking along and on a highway shall walk on the left side of the roadway or the shoulder of the highway facing oncoming traffic, unless the left side of the roadway or the shoulder of the highway facing oncoming traffic is obstructed or unsafe).
Cantu did not tell Martinez he was under arrest but asked him to “come here” several times, purportedly to advise Martinez about safely walking along the road. Martinez originally complied but, after speaking with Cantu for approximately one minute, began to walk away. Cantu did not tackle Martinez but put his arms around Martinez’s upper body and neck, and took him to the ground for handcuffing. Dash camera footage captured Martinez complaining of pain. Officer Dondiego arrived on the scene and helped Cantu handcuff Martinez. Four additional officers—Officers Gallegos, Macha, Reid, and Manriquez—arrived and escorted Martinez to a squad car. Martinez was transferred to Oak Bend Medical Hospital for a medical evaluation. Medical staff reported that Martinez’s pain was “chronic,” he had no broken bones, and he was sufficiently mobile. After administering pain medicine, the hospital cleared Martinez and deemed him fit for jail.
Martinez brought suit against Officers Cantu, Dondiego, Manriquez, Reid, Macha, Gallegos, and Torres in their individual capacities for unlawful seizure and excessive use of force in violation of the Fourth Amendment and liability for failure to intervene (i.e., bystander liability) against all of the Officers. Regarding Martinez’s unlawful arrest claim, the district court found Cantu had probable cause to stop and arrest Martinez because he was in clear violation of the Texas Transportation Code. The video footage captured Martinez walking with the flow of traffic, on the righthand side of street for “at least ten seconds.” Because the Texas Transportation Code requires pedestrians to walk on the lefthand side of the street facing oncoming traffic, this violated Texas law and provided probable cause for the stop and arrest.
The district court held that Martinez failed to create a genuine dispute of material fact on his excessive force claim because he offered no evidence that he was injured by the incident. The district court further found that the Officers used reasonable force when effectuating the arrest. Finally, the court granted summary judgment in the Officers’ favor on the bystander liability claim, which could not stand absent a constitutional violation. The 5th affirmed.
Analysis
The constitutional claim of false arrest requires a showing of no probable cause. To establish a claim of excessive force under the Fourth Amendment, plaintiffs must demonstrate: ʻ(1) injury, (2) which resulted directly and only from a use of force that was clearly excessive, and (3) the excessiveness of which was clearly unreasonable. The injury prong requires more than a de minimis injury in most instances.
Officer Cantu had probable cause to arrest Martinez because the dash camera footage indisputably captured Martinez walking on the righthand side of the road for several seconds, in violation of the Texas Transportation Code. With respect to Martinez’s excessive use of force claim, we agree with the district court that any injury was de minimis, and Cantu used reasonable force given the totality of the circumstances. Finally, the district court properly dismissed Martinez’s bystander liability claim because it cannot stand absent an underlying constitutional violation.
With all due respect to the dissent, this is not a jaywalking case. To the contrary, the officer was enforcing a provision of the Texas Transportation Code that requires pedestrians to walk on the side of the roadway facing oncoming traffic. Walking on the side of the road with one’s back to traffic poses considerably greater risk than jaywalking where the exposure of the pedestrian is quite different. The significance accorded this provision by its placement in the Texas Transportation Code provides an important backdrop to the mission of Officer Cantu. His unchallenged affidavit explained that he confronted Martinez not to arrest him but to explain the importance of the provision that forbade Martinez’s action. Namely, that Martinez’s action was a threat to himself.
Martinez chose not to listen to Officer Cantu and instead walked away from him. Officer Cantu faced the choice of either being ignored or enforcing the statute. Officer Cantu decided to place his arm over Martinez’s shoulder and bring him to the ground. Based on our review of video evidence, this maneuver would be unlikely to have caused pain to Martinez but for the fact that Martinez had a deformity (arms which had been extensively injured from a prior car accident and had a limited range of motion) unknown to Officer Cantu. That said, this case remains close. Perhaps in one sense, it is a tie. But the officer should not be held liable for damages when there is no evidence of injury in the record and Qualified Immunity protects the officer’s honest mistake.
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court’s judgment.
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/23/23-20539-CV0.pdf