Filed: Nov. 29, 1995
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ No. 94-10456 _ MICHAEL BAULCH, GISELA S. BAULCH, individually and on behalf of their deceased son KENNETH BAULCH; and as next friend of KYLE WAYNE BAULCH, Plaintiffs-Appellees, VERSUS ROBERT C. JOHNS, Defendant-Appellant. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas _ November 29, 1995 Before SMITH and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges, and BUCHMEYER, District Judge. JERRY BUCHMEYER, District Judge:* This
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ No. 94-10456 _ MICHAEL BAULCH, GISELA S. BAULCH, individually and on behalf of their deceased son KENNETH BAULCH; and as next friend of KYLE WAYNE BAULCH, Plaintiffs-Appellees, VERSUS ROBERT C. JOHNS, Defendant-Appellant. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas _ November 29, 1995 Before SMITH and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges, and BUCHMEYER, District Judge. JERRY BUCHMEYER, District Judge:* This i..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
______________
No. 94-10456
_______________
MICHAEL BAULCH, GISELA S. BAULCH,
individually and on behalf of their
deceased son KENNETH BAULCH; and as
next friend of KYLE WAYNE BAULCH,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
VERSUS
ROBERT C. JOHNS,
Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
_________________________
November 29, 1995
Before SMITH and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges, and BUCHMEYER, District Judge.
JERRY BUCHMEYER, District Judge:*
This is an interlocutory appeal by a Garland police officer from the district court’s
denial of his motion for summary judgment based on the doctrine of qualified immunity.
Because there are disputed issues of material fact concerning the qualified immunity defense,
we lack jurisdiction to consider the interlocutory appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss. In
addition, because counsel for appellant has multiplied these proceedings unreasonably and
vexatiously, we impose sanctions against counsel pursuant to 28 U.S. C. § 1927.
I. The Factual Dispute
It is undisputed that the defendant, Garland Police Officer Robert C. Johns (“Johns”),
*
/Chief Judge of the Northern District of Texas, sitting by designation.
1
shot and killed Kenneth Baulch (“Baulch”) in Baulch’s home on February 14, 1991. However,
the material facts underlying this incident are hotly disputed.
According to Johns, he shot and killed Baulch in self-defense. Specifically, Johns claims
that he and other members of the Garland Police Department, acting under a valid search
warrant, entered Baulch’s residence to search for illegal narcotics; that Baulch fled into a
bedroom on the south side of the home; that Johns entered the south bedroom in pursuit; but
that Baulch ambushed Johns and began pounding him with an unidentified weapon. Johns
insists that this attack forced him to shoot and kill Baulch from a defensive, crouching
position.
Not surprisingly, Baulch’s parents (“plaintiffs”) present a decidedly different version.
According to them, when Johns and the other Garland police officers raided Baulch’s
residence, Baulch was sleeping in the south bedroom. As Baulch was awakened by the raid,
Johns forcibly entered the south bedroom, ordered Baulch to “freeze,” but then immediately
shot Baulch before he could comply with this command. Plaintiffs support these allegations
with an autopsy report documenting the examination performed on Baulch the following day,
February 15, 1991, at the Southwestern Institute of Forensic Sciences under the authority of
the Dallas County Medical Examiner (“Autopsy Report”). This Autopsy Report -- a copy of
which was provided to the plaintiff’s attorney by Garland Chief of Police Terry Hensley --
concludes that, of the four gunshots that struck Baulch, three bullets entered Baulch’s body
from the back. Thus, the Autopsy Report creates this obvious factual dispute: did Johns shoot
Baulch in the back without justification, or did Johns shoot Baulch to prevent him from
continuing a deadly assault on Johns?
II. Procedural Background
Plaintiffs brought suit against Johns individually under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that
Johns employed excessive deadly force in violation of Baulch’s rights under the Fourth
Amendment. Johns moved for summary judgment, arguing that the doctrine of qualified
2
immunity shielded him from suit. The district court, reasoning that the Autopsy Report alone
was sufficient to create fact questions as to whether Baulch was shot in the back three times
while he was retreating from Johns, denied the motion for summary judgment. Johns filed
this interlocutory appeal from the denial of his qualified immunity defense.
III. Analysis
In substance, Johns urges two points on appeal. First, he claims that the Autopsy
Report alone is insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact as to his qualified
immunity defense. Second, Johns argues that the district court abused its discretion in
considering the Autopsy Report because that report had not been properly authenticated by
the plaintiffs. The first argument is specious, the second is frivolous, and neither merits
extended discussion.
A. An interlocutory appeal must present an issue of law,
not a dispute about the facts
It is well-settled that “a district court’s denial of a claim of qualified immunity, to the
extent that it turns on an issue of law, is an appealable ‘final decision’ within the meaning of
28 U.S.C. § 1291 notwithstanding the absence of a final judgment.”1/ However, as the
Supreme Court made clear in Johnson v. Jones, _____ U.S. _____, 115 S. Ct. 2151,
132 L. Ed.
2d 238 (1995), “a defendant, entitled to invoke a qualified immunity defense, may not appeal
a district court’s summary judgment order insofar as that order determines whether or not
the pretrial record sets forth a ‘genuine’ issue of fact for trial.”2/ Indeed, even before Johnson,
1
/Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 at 530,
105 S. Ct. 2806 at 2817,
86 L. Ed. 2d 411 (1985).
See also Hale v. Townley,
45 F.3d 914, 918 (5th Cir. 1995).
2
/Id at _____, 115 S. Ct. at 2159. Accord, Hale, 45 F.3d at 918; Boulos v. Wilson,
834 F.
2d 504, 509 (5th Cir. 1987).
3
we had consistently held that a district court’s denial of a qualified immunity summary
judgment is not appealable when there are disputed issues concerning the immunity claim.
Tamez v. City of San Marcos, Texas, 62 F.3d 123 (5th Cir. 1995); Johnston v. City of Houston,
14 F.3d 1056, 1060 (5th Cir. 1994); Lampkin v. City of Nacogdoches,
7 F.3d 430, 431 (5th Cir.
1993), cert. denied, _____ U.S. _____,
114 S. Ct. 1400,
128 L. Ed. 2d 73 (1994).
This appeal does not present an issue of law. Instead, Johns merely argues that the
district court was wrong in concluding that the Autopsy Report creates a genuine issue of
material fact concerning this central issue: did Johns shoot Baulch in self-defense or did he
shoot Baulch without provocation? In his affidavit, Johns claims that Baulch attacked him,
struck him repeatedly with an unidentified object, and forced Johns to shoot Baulch in self-
defense. In stark contrast, the Autopsy Report indicates that the fatal shots struck Baulch in
the back while Baulch was retreating. Faced with conflicting evidence, the district court
determined that there was a genuine issue of material fact concerning the lawfulness of the
force employed by Johns. We agree. Accordingly, under Johnston, Tamez and Hale, we lack
jurisdiction over Johns’ interlocutory appeal from the denial of his qualified immunity motion
for summary judgment.
B. The Autopsy Report was properly authenticated
It is undisputed that the Autopsy Report concerning Baulch’s death was provided to
the plaintiffs, in response to a deposition subpoena duces tecum, by Garland Chief of Police
Terry Hensley, the supervisor of officer Johns. Despite this, Johns’ attorney argues before us,
as he did before the district court, that the Autopsy Report was not properly authenticated by
the plaintiffs. While the district court did not explain why it rejected this argument by Johns’
attorney, we hold that the Autopsy Report is clearly admissible under Rule 901, Fed. R. Evid.:
Rule 901. Requirement of Authentication or Identification
(a) General provision. The requirement of authentication or
identification as a condition precedent to admissibility is satisfied
by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in
question is what the proponent claims.
4
(b) Illustrations. By way of illustration only, and not by way
of limitation, the following are examples of authentication or
identification conforming with the requirements of this rule:
(1) Testimony of witness with knowledge.
Testimony that a matter is what it is claimed to be
...
* * *
(4) Distinctive Characteristics and the like.
Appearance, contents, substance, internal
patterns, or other distinctive characteristics, taken
in conjunction with circumstances.
We do not require district courts to find that authenticity is conclusively established
before allowing the admission of disputed evidence. United States v. Lance, 853 F.2d 1177,
1181 (5th Cir. 1988); United States v. Whittington,
783 F.2d 1210, 1215 (5th Cir.), cert. denied,
479 U.S. 882,
107 S. Ct. 269,
93 L. Ed. 2d 246 (1986). For example, in United States v. Lopez,
873 F.2d 769, 772 (5th Cir. 1989), we held that the district court did not abuse its discretion
when it admitted a document “which appear[ed] on its face and by its contents to be a record
of conviction of illegal entry into the United States.” The document at issue in Lopez was not
under seal, and it was not supported by testimony of the document’s custodian. However, the
document was supported by testimony that “provided circumstantial evidence to support the
conclusion that the document was an official record,” including the signature of a United
States Magistrate Judge and a clerk of that court. Together, “internal indicia of reliability
within the document” and testimony concerning the chain of custody of the document after
it was provided to a border patrol agent authenticated the document under Rule 901.
In this case, the Autopsy Report is clearly admissible under the same Rule 901 analysis.
As submitted to the district court, the Autopsy Report is an eight page, single-spaced
document containing an in-depth forensic analysis of Baulch’s organ weights, the gunshot
entrance and exit wounds, toxicology, etc. The Autopsy Report is signed by the Medical
Examiner, Dr. Charles Odem, and by the Acting Chief Medical Examiner, Dr. Jeffrey
5
Barnard. It is also supported by the affidavit of Heather Harvey,3/ which establishes that the
Autopsy Report was provided to plaintiffs’ counsel by Garland Police Chief Terry Hensley in
response to the plaintiffs’ subpoena duces tecum. While Harvey was not the record custodian
of the Autopsy Report, her testimony regarding its chain of custody after it was produced,
combined with the distinctive characteristics of the document itself, is certainly sufficient to
authenticate the Autopsy Report under Rule 901.
IV. Sanctions Under 28 U.S.C. § 1927
Because of his frivolous arguments concerning the Autopsy Report -- which needlessly
wasted the time of the opposing counsel and of this Court -- we impose sanctions upon Johns’
attorney, John W. Bickel II.
We may impose sanctions upon “[a]ny attorney...who so multiplies the proceedings in
any case unreasonably and vexatiously.” 29 U.S.C. § 1927 (West 1994).4/ Of course, § 1927
is to be strictly construed, and sanctions may not be imposed for mere negligence on the part
of counsel. Browning v. Kramer, 931 F.2d 340, 344 (5th Cir. 1991). However, § 1927 sanctions
are appropriate when an attorney has acted in bad faith, with improper motive, or with a
3
/Ms. Harvey is an employee of the plaintiffs’ attorney. Her affidavit states in paragraph
6:
Exhibit “3" to this affidavit is a true copy of the Autopsy Report
documenting the autopsy performed on Kenneth Baulch on February 15, 1991
at the Southwestern Institute of Forensic Sciences. Garland Police Chief Terry
Hensley, who is also represented in this action by Defendant’s counsel, produced
this report to Plaintiffs on May 28, 1993 in response to Plaintiffs’ subpoena duces
tecum, dated May 11, 1993.
4
/28 U.S.C. § 1927 provides:
Any attorney or other person admitted to conduct cases in any
court of the United States or any Territory thereof who so
multiplies the proceedings in any case unreasonably and
vexatiously may be required by the court to satisfy personally the
excess costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees reasonably incurred
because of such conduct.
6
reckless disregard of the duty owed to the court. FDIC v. Conner, 20 F.3d 1376, 1384 (5th Cir.
1994); Travelers Ins. Co. v. St. Jude Hosp. of Kenner, La.,
38 F. 3d. 1414, 1417 (5th Cir. 1994).
Counsel for Johns has displayed, at the very least, a reckless disregard of his duties as
an officer of this Court by arguing that the Autopsy Report was not properly authenticated.
Despite his argument, Johns’ counsel does not dispute these facts: the Autopsy Report was
prepared by the Southwestern Institute of Forensic Science, under the authority of the Dallas
County Medical Examiner; a copy of it was provided to Garland Police Chief Terry Hensley;
in response to a subpoena duces tecum, Chief Hensley -- who is also represented in this action
by counsel for Johns -- produced the Autopsy Report to the plaintiffs’ attorney. This put
Johns’ counsel in the position of arguing to us that a document he provided to opposing
counsel “may not” be a true and accurate copy of the Autopsy Report located in his client’s
files. 5/
Indeed, Johns’ counsel admitted to us at oral argument that, in truth, he had no reason
to believe that the Autopsy Report was not a true copy of the autopsy report prepared at
Southwestern Institute of Forensic Sciences. In fact, counsel admitted that he had never
compared the Autopsy Report either with the original report at the Southwestern Institute or
with the copy provided to his client, Chief of Police Terry Hensley.6/ Nor has Johns’ counsel
even attempted to explain why his expert witnesses may properly rely upon the Autopsy
Report, but the plaintiffs may not do so.7/
5
/Similarly, the argument in his post-argument brief -- that the original report on file with
the Dallas County Medical Examiner’s Office reveals that the Autopsy Report is missing a
page -- puts Johns’ counsel in the position of claiming that the autopsy Report was not
admissible because his client, Chief of Police Terry Hensley, provided an incomplete copy of
the report to the plaintiffs’ attorney.
6
/If he had done so, he would have discovered that the Autopsy Report was substantially
correct. See fn. 5.
7
/In Defendant’s Response to Plaintiffs’ Third Set of Interrogatories and Request for
Production of Documents, Johns’ counsel identifies two expert witnesses whose testimony
would rely on the Autopsy Report: Dr. Martin Fackler and Donald Bassett.
7
Underlying the sanctions provided in 28 U.S.C. § 1927 is the recognition that frivolous
appeals and arguments waste scarce judicial resources and increase legal fees charged to
parties. See Carmon v. Lubrizol Corp., 17 F.3d 791, 795 (5th Cir. 1994); Plattenburg v. Allstate
Ins. Co.,
918 F.2d 562, 562 (5th Cir. 1990). Accordingly, we hold that § 1927 sanctions are
appropriate in this case against Johns’ attorney because of his arguments to this Court that
the Autopsy Report was not properly authenticated when, in truth, (i) the attorney had no
reason to doubt the document’s accuracy, (ii) the document was produced to opposing counsel
by a witness who was also represented by Johns’ attorney, and (iii) the attorney’s own expert
witnesses rely upon a copy of the same Autopsy Report.
We are mindful that § 1927 sanctions should not be assessed without fair notice and
without giving the attorney an opportunity to respond. See Alizadeh v. Safeway Stores, Inc.,
910 F.2d 234, 236 (5th Cir. 1990), citing Roadway Express, Inc. V. Piper,
447 U.S. 752, 100 S.
Ct. 2455, 2462,
65 L. Ed. 2d 488 (1980). However, in their briefing to this Court, plaintiffs
strenuously argued that the instant appeal was frivolous. Then, at oral argument, we
questioned Johns’ counsel at length about the basis for his arguments concerning the Autopsy
Report. Counsel for Johns responded to these issues at oral argument and later in as post-
argument briefs. We are convinced, therefore, that counsel has received notice that we were
considering sanctions against him and has enjoyed sufficient opportunity to respond. See
Coghlan v. Starkey,
852 F.2d 806 (5th Cir. 1988); Farguson v. Mbank Houston, N.A.,
808 F.
2d 358 (5th Cir. 1986) (per curiam).
We conclude that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1927, appellant’s attorney should be assessed
the attorney’s fees of appellees’ counsel and all costs incurred in this appeal. Counsel for
appellees has filed an affidavit in accordance with Local Rule 47.8, setting forth the time
reasonably spent on this appeal and the reasonable hourly rate charged in similar cases in the
8
Dallas area.8/ See Atwood v. Union Carbide Corp., 847 F.2d 278, 281-82 (5th Cir. 1988) (per
curiam). Accordingly, we award reasonable attorneys fees of $20,643.75 and costs to the
appellees’ counsel.
V. Conclusion
This appeal is DISMISSED. SANCTIONS are imposed under 28 U.S.C. § 1927, and
reasonable attorneys fees of $13,831.31 and costs are taxed against counsel for appellant.
These sanctions are to be paid to appellees’ counsel within thirty (30) days from the date the
mandate issues.
8
/This affidavit asserts that appellees’ counsel spent 91.75 hours on this interlocutory appeal
and that $225 to $300 is a reasonable hourly rate for attorneys of comparable experience.
Appellant’s response does not question the hours or the rate claimed. Given this uncontested
assertion, we approve of $13,831.31 as a reasonable fee in this case, but, as the specifics were
not subject to adversarial testing, we do not opine on whether the rate claimed would be
reasonable in other cases in the Dallas area.
9
