Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Darden v. City of Fort Worth

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2018 · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureQualified ImmunitySummary JudgmentSection 1983Excessive ForceMunicipal Liabilitysummary judgmentqualified immunity

Facts

Fort Worth officers executed a no-knock narcotics warrant at a private residence and encountered Jermaine Darden, a 340-pound black man, near the front door with his hands raised. According to plaintiff's witnesses, Darden was thrown to the ground without time to react, did not threaten the officers, and did not resist, but officers allegedly threw him down, tased him twice, choked him, punched and kicked him in the face, forced him into a prone position, pressed his face and neck into the floor, and pulled his arms behind his back. During the struggle, people in the house repeatedly yelled that Darden had asthma and could not breathe, and eyewitnesses testified Darden also said he could not breathe. Darden suffered a heart attack and died during the arrest.

Issue

Whether Officers Snow and Romero were entitled to qualified immunity at summary judgment on the estate's Fourth Amendment excessive-force claims, and whether the district court properly dismissed the municipal-liability claims against the City solely because it found no constitutional violation by the officers. A related question was whether Darden's preexisting medical conditions defeated the causation element of the excessive-force claim.

Rule

On qualified immunity, the court asks whether the plaintiff's facts make out a constitutional violation and whether the right was clearly established at the time. In a § 1983 excessive-force claim, the plaintiff must show injury resulting directly and only from force that was clearly excessive and clearly unreasonable; those latter inquiries are evaluated together under the totality of the circumstances, including the severity of the crime, immediate threat, and active resistance. At summary judgment, the nonmovant's version controls unless video evidence so blatantly contradicts it that no reasonable jury could believe it, and the eggshell skull rule applies so an officer takes the victim as found.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Phoenix, officers entered a townhouse to arrest Malik Turner on a felony warrant. Two body cameras captured the scene, but one camera pointed at a hallway and the other was blocked by furniture during the first 20 seconds; neighbors testify Malik immediately raised his hands and was tackled before he could comply, while an officer says Malik lunged forward and resisted.

If Malik sues for excessive force under § 1983 and the officer moves for summary judgment on qualified immunity, how should the court treat the conflicting accounts?

Explanation. At summary judgment, the nonmovant's evidence is believed and justifiable inferences are drawn in his favor. Video permits a court to reject that version only when it blatantly contradicts the plaintiff's account so that no reasonable jury could believe it. Where footage misses the critical moments or is obscured, the demanding Scott v. Harris standard is not met, so the plaintiff's version must control for summary-judgment purposes.