inline">Case: 21-20256 Document: 00516289861 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/21/2022 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED April 21, 2022 No. 21-20256 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Jessica Lorraine Solis, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Samuel A. Serrett; Teddy F. Sims, Defendants—Appellants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:19-CV-4865 Before Davis, Smith, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges. Kurt D. Engelhardt, Circuit Judge: Foundational to our qualified immunity doctrine is the concept that we must view an officer’s actions from that officer’s point of view without the benefit of hindsight. From the comfort of a courtroom or chambers, it is often possible for judges to muse on how an officer could have handled a situation better. But that does not mean the officer is not entitled to qualified immunity. In this case, we cannot say that the officers violated clearly established law when we view the events from the officers’ point of view at the very moment they acted. Accordingly, we reverse and remand. Case: 21-20256 Document: 00516289861 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/21/2022 No. 21-20256 I. On May 27, 2019, Officer Samuel Serrett pulled over Timothy Robinson and his girlfriend Jessica Solis in Baytown, Texas near a self-storage center. 1 Serrett told Robinson, the driver, that he had been pulled over for failing to properly signal and driving outside of his lane. Serrett posed a series of questions to Robinson, but Solis interjected and answered the questions before Robinson could respond. Eventually, Serrett had to clarify to Solis that unless he was directing a question specifically to her, he wanted a response from Robinson as he was the driver. Serrett requested Robinson’s license and registration. Solis informed Officer Serrett that she owned the vehicle. The couple further informed Serrett that they lived in an apartment unit in the storage unit building across the street. Because Serrett believed that either Robinson or Solis (or both) may have been intoxicated, he requested the assistance of a backup officer. Serrett ordered Robinson to exit the vehicle. Serrett then asked Robinson a variety of questions, and the exchange became tense. Eventually, Serrett began a field sobriety test of Robinson. Robinson objected, stating “I am not intoxicated.” Serrett viewed this as refusing the field sobriety test. He arrested Robinson and placed him into the police vehicle. When Serrett asked Robinson to exit the vehicle, Solis began 1 The incidents described here were captured, at least in part, on four videos. These videos are available at: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/21/21-20256_Body_Cam.mp4 https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/21/21-20256_Dash_Cam.mp4 https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/21/21-20256_Plaintiff_Recording.mp4 https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/21/21- 20256_Storage_Facility_Video.mp4 2 Case: 21-20256 Document: 00516289861 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/21/2022 No. 21-20256 recording the encounter on her cell phone and stepped out of the vehicle herself. Shortly afterward, Officer Teddy Sims arrived on the scene and asked Solis to step over to a grassy area near the storage facility. While Serrett and Robinson spoke, Solis spoke with Sims. Sims asked Solis how much she had to drink that evening, and Solis responded, “literally none.” This was false, as Solis later testified in her deposition that she had been drinking. Solis also emphasized that she did “not appreciate this” and stated repeatedly that the couple was pulled over only when her “black boyfriend is driving [her] car.” When Serrett arrested Robinson for refusing the field sobriety test, Solis objected, and Sims informed her that Robinson “refused, so he’s taking him in.” Solis stepped closer to Serrett and Robinson, and Sims asked her to step back to the grassy area because he did not “want to put [Solis] in cuffs for interference.” Solis began to narrate the events, and Sims interjected stating “well actually, he gave him multiple opportunities, I’m gonna say it for the camera . . . multiple opportunities, and he refused.” Once Robinson was in Serrett’s vehicle, Serrett walked over to where Solis and Sims stood. Serrett informed Sims that Robinson’s license was “ineligible.” Sims responded, “Oh that’s why they were acting like that.” At this point, Solis stopped filming but continued to hold her cell phone. She twice requested Serrett’s badge number. Serrett reached out and said, “Can I see your phone for a second please?” Solis jerked the phone away from Serrett’s hand and responded, “No you can’t.” Serrett continued to reach for the phone stating, “Well I don’t want you to drop it when I arrest you.” Solis let her left hand fall to her side and exclaimed, “Drop it? Excuse me!” Sims came up behind Solis and quickly pulled her left arm behind her back. Serrett reached for Solis’s other arm. Solis fell to the ground, either from the officers forcing her down or from the momentum as she struggled. Sims then held his knee on Solis’s back as Serrett handcuffed her. Officer Serrett 3 Case: 21-20256 Document: 00516289861 Page: 4 Date Filed: 04/21/2022 No. 21-20256 informed Solis that she was being arrested for public intoxication, stood her up, and walked her over to the police car. Serrett took Solis and Robinson to jail. Solis sued Serrett and Sims, asserting various § 1983 claims including excessive force, unreasonable seizure due to an arrest without probable cause, malicious prosecution, violation of her First Amendment rights for arresting her in retaliation for filming the officers, and violation of her Fourteenth Amendment rights. Serrett and Sims answered and asserted the defense of qualified immunity. The officers later moved for summary judgment, arguing they were entitled to qualified immunity on all of Solis’s claims. The district court granted summary judgment on all of Solis’s claims except her excessive force § 1983 claim. 2 The district court held that disputed issues of material fact barred summary judgment on the excessive force claim and that, viewing the facts in Solis’s favor, the officers violated a clearly established right. Serrett and Sims promptly appealed. II. “Qualified immunity shields public officials sued in their individual capacities from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Kokesh v. Curlee, 14 F.4th 382, 391

   (5th Cir. 2021) (cleaned up). “This court reviews de novo the district court’s
   resolution of legal issues on a motion for summary judgment on the basis of
   qualified immunity.” Hanks v. Rogers,

 (5th Cir. 2017)
   (quoting Griggs v. Brewer,

841 F.3d 308, 311

 (5th Cir. 2016)). “Summary



           2
               The dismissal of Solis’s other claims is not the subject of this appeal.




                                                   4
Case: 21-20256      Document: 00516289861          Page: 5    Date Filed: 04/21/2022




                                    No. 21-20256


   judgment must be granted ‘if the movant shows that there is no genuine
   dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a
   matter of law.’” Trammell v. Fruge,

868 F.3d 332, 338

 (5th Cir. 2017)
   (quoting FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a)). “In reviewing an appeal from summary
   judgment, we ‘view the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving
   party and draw all reasonable inferences in its favor.’” Hanks,

853 F.3d at 743

 (quoting Deville v. Marcantel,

567 F.3d 156

, 163–64 (5th Cir. 2009)). “A
   qualified immunity defense alters the usual summary judgment burden of
   proof. Once an official pleads the defense, the burden then shifts to the
   plaintiff, who must rebut the defense by establishing a genuine fact issue as
   to whether the official’s allegedly wrongful conduct violated clearly
   established law.”

Citation profile

Relationships

How this case has been treated — in progress