Filed: Sep. 17, 2020
Latest Update: Sep. 17, 2020
Summary: Case: 20-10331 Document: 00515568102 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/17/2020 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED September 17, 2020 No. 20-10331 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Jose Vasquez, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Justin Landon, Defendant—Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:18-CV-340 Before Davis, Stewart, and Dennis, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Officer Justin Landon appeals the
Summary: Case: 20-10331 Document: 00515568102 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/17/2020 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED September 17, 2020 No. 20-10331 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Jose Vasquez, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Justin Landon, Defendant—Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:18-CV-340 Before Davis, Stewart, and Dennis, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Officer Justin Landon appeals the d..
More
Case: 20-10331 Document: 00515568102 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/17/2020
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
September 17, 2020
No. 20-10331
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Jose Vasquez,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Justin Landon,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:18-CV-340
Before Davis, Stewart, and Dennis, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Officer Justin Landon appeals the district court’s denial of summary
judgment based on qualified immunity in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 case. On the
night of July 16, 2017, Officer Landon and several other Fort Worth Police
Department officers responded to a call complaining that Jose Vasquez, who
was intoxicated, was causing a disturbance and threatening his neighbor with
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 20-10331 Document: 00515568102 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/17/2020
No. 20-10331
a knife. Officer Landon asserts that Vasquez, standing on the grass near the
bed of a pickup truck in the street, did not respond to Officer Landon’s
direction to raise and show his hands. Officer Landon then employed a
“distractionary strike” to Vasquez’s face to gain his compliance. Although
Officer Landon said that he was concerned about the report of a knife, Officer
Landon did not see a knife in Vasquez’s hands when he struck Vasquez. The
paramedics arrived thereafter, and Vasquez claims his nose was broken
during the incident.
Vasquez filed suit claiming that Officer Landon’s strike constituted
excessive force, and Officer Landon raised the affirmative defense of
qualified immunity in response. Based in large part on the body camera
footage from the scene, the district court on a motion for summary judgment
found that a jury could reasonably conclude that Officer Landon used
excessive force in striking Vasquez. The district court therefore determined
that the evidence presented a genuine issue of material fact that precluded
granting summary judgment in favor of Officer Landon based on qualified
immunity.
“The denial of qualified immunity on a motion for summary judgment
is immediately appealable if it is based on a conclusion of law.” 1 However, if
the district court’s “denial of qualified immunity rests on the basis that
genuine issues of material fact exist,” then this Court has no jurisdiction to
hear the interlocutory appeal and we must dismiss the appeal. 2 After
reviewing the body camera footage, we agree with the careful memorandum
opinion and order of the district court that genuine issues of material fact
have been presented.
1
Amador v. Vasquez,
961 F.3d 721, 726 (5th Cir. 2020) (citations and internal quotation
marks omitted).
2
Id. (citation omitted).
2
Case: 20-10331 Document: 00515568102 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/17/2020
No. 20-10331
Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED.
3