Filed: Feb. 26, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 00-60506 Summary Calendar PATRICIA SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus RANKIN COUNTY, MISS., ET AL., Defendants. SHANNON SMITH, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 3:99-CV-449 - February 23, 2001 Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Shannon Smith [“Deputy Smith”] appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for summary j
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 00-60506 Summary Calendar PATRICIA SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus RANKIN COUNTY, MISS., ET AL., Defendants. SHANNON SMITH, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 3:99-CV-449 - February 23, 2001 Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Shannon Smith [“Deputy Smith”] appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for summary ju..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-60506
Summary Calendar
PATRICIA SMITH,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
RANKIN COUNTY, MISS., ET AL.,
Defendants.
SHANNON SMITH,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 3:99-CV-449
--------------------
February 23, 2001
Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Shannon Smith [“Deputy Smith”] appeals the district court’s
denial of his motion for summary judgment based on qualified
immunity in a civil rights lawsuit brought by Patricia Smith
[“Ms. Smith”]. The district court held that Deputy Smith was not
entitled to qualified immunity on Ms. Smith’s claim that the
officer used excessive force on her. We have jurisdiction to
review the district court’s denial to the extent it turned on
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
No. 00-60506
-2-
matters of law, including whether any issues of disputed fact are
material. Colston v. Barnhart,
146 F.3d 282, 284 (5th Cir.
1998). Our review is de novo. Lemoine v. New Horizons Ranch and
Ctr., Inc.,
174 F.3d 629, 634 (5th Cir. 1999).
Deputy Smith argues that he is entitled to qualified
immunity because the force he administered and the injuries
suffered by Ms. Smith were de minimis. Viewing the summary-
judgment evidence in the light most favorable to Ms. Smith, as we
must on this appeal, we reject Deputy Smith’s arguments. See
Ikerd v. Blair,
101 F.3d 430, 434 & n.9 (5th Cir. 1996).
Deputy Smith contends that his actions were reasonable under
the law that was clearly established in April 1998 because no
Fifth Circuit case involved a use of force like the one alleged
by Ms. Smith. When, as here, the legal standard that an officer
must follow was clear, it is not required that the precise action
in question have been held unlawful. See Gutierrez v. City of
San Antonio,
139 F.3d 441, 445 (5th Cir. 1998).
AFFIRMED.