The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF Wes District Cot
Soest ee Bistrict of Texas
ENTERED
Corey Spiller, § January 20, 2022
§ Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Plaintiff, §
§
versus § Civil Action H-20-3878
Harris County, Texas, et al., :
Defendants. :
Opinion on Summary Judgment
I. Facts.
On December 21, 2079, at 4:00 a.m., Corey Spiller’s girlfriend crashed her
car on a Houston freeway. She called Spiller to pick her up because she could not
get home. When Spiller arrived, several police officers were at the accident site,
including Sergeant Jared Lindsay.
Lindsay identified himself as the supervisor. He asked Spiller’s girlfriend
to explain what had happened. Then, Lindsay told her to accompany another
officer to a location off the tollway and that Spiller could follow them. Spiller
insisted that he wanted to speak to another officer.
The altercation escalated. Spiller spoke over Lindsay as Lindsay walked
toward him. Lindsay grabbed him by the throat and slammed him down on the
hood of the nearest car. Lindsay slammed Spiller on the nearest car to restrain
him. Then, Spiller swung at him, missed, and tried again. The videos show that
Lindsay responded by saying “don’t you...swing at me.”
Deputy Johnson pushed Spiller to the floor. It is disputed whether
Lindsay’s right hand was trapped. Spiller says that Lindsay told the other officers
that Spiller had elbowed him, and they used a Taser on him.
Spiller sued Jared Lindsay for: (a) excessive force, (b) unreasonable seizure,
false arrest, and false imprisonment, (c) bystander liability, (d) First Amendment
violations, and (e) ratification of a pattern or practice of using excessive force.
Jared Lindsay moved for summary judgment.
2. Qualified Immunity.
To defeat qualified immunity, Spiller must show that (1) Lindsay violated
a constitutional right of his, and (2) his actions were objectively unreasonable in
light of clearly established law and facts.*
Spiller says that Lindsay violated his Fourth Amendment rights through
an unlawful arrest and excessive force.
A. Fourth Amendment - Excessive Force
Excessive force violates the Fourth Amendment when there is: (z) an
injury, (2) which resulted from use of force that was clearly excessive, and (3) the
excessiveness was clearly unreasonable.* Based on the facts, the court may
consider (x) the severity of the crime, (2) the immediate threat to other officers,
and (3) whether the defendant was actively resisting arrest.* [he Court must view
the facts through the eyes of a reasonable officer at the time.
Spiller says Lindsay's force was excessive and unreasonable. He says he
posed no safety threat and he was not resisting arrest.
Based on the body—camera footage, Spiller was interfering in a police
matter. He refused to speak with Lindsay, the supervisor on duty. Lindsay told
Spiller he could meet his girlfriend at another location. Spiller was persistent that
he did not want to speak with Lindsay. The camera shows Spiller turned his
elbow toward Lindsay.
Spiller’s interference with a police incident provoked his arrest. Lindsay
neutralized him. Spiller resisted arrest. When he was pushed to the hood of his
car, he punched back at Lindsay. When Lindsay arrested Spiller, he did not injure
him. Lindsay was treated for a lip injury, scrapes on his right knuckles and pain
on his right elbow.
“Brumfield v. Hollins, 551 F.3d 322, 326 (5th Cir.2008)
*Collier v. Montgomery, 569 F.3d 214, 218 (5th Cir. 2009)
3Grabam v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 396 (1989).
Spiller must show a genuine issue of material fact that no police officer
could have believed that their conduct was lawful in light of clearly established
law. Based on the video, it is undisputed that Lindsay put his hand on Spiller’s
throat. A reasonable officer could see that reaction was lawful to respond to an
uncooperative witness. The circumstances show that Lindsay made a reasonable
judgment. He did not violate Spiller’s constitutional right.
Lindsay is still entitled to immunity from suit if the right was not clearly
established at the time of the violation. It must be indisputable that the conduct
was unconstitutional.+
Spiller says this excessive force was clearly established. He cited cases that
are distinct from the facts here. A police officer used excessive force when he
pushed a suspect that did not follow a police officer’s instructions onto the car
and struck him with a baton.’ A police officer used excessive force when he tased
a suspect after he was lying face down on the ground because he did not comply
with orders to put his hands behind his back.° In both these scenarios, the officers
resorted to excessive force when a suspect was not resisting arrest.
Spiller was resisting arrest. He says he did not resist arrest until after
Lindsay put his hands on his neck. Based on the video, he was not responding to
orders well before the incident escalated. When words do not work, physical force
is the next logical step. Lindsay neutralized Spiller to prevent further disturbance
of the police work. Spiller was taken to the ground after he tried to punch
Lindsay. Lindsay did not tase him. Lindsay’s use of force was not excessive based
on the rights clearly established at this time.
&B. Fourth Amendment - Unlawful Arrest
Spiller claims this was an unlawful arrest. An arrest is lawful when there is
probable cause that the suspect has committed an offense.” The court can take
* Mullenix v. Luna, 136 U.S. 305, 308 (2075)
3 Newman v. Guedry, 703 F.3d 757 (5° Cir. 2012)
® Ramirez v. Martinez, 716 F.3d 369 (5 Cir. 2013)
7Turmer v. Driver, 848 F.3d 678, 694 (5th Cir. 2017).
judicial notice of a magistrate’s determination of probable cause.* The arrest was
made on an alleged violation of §38.15 of the Texas Penal Code for interference
with public duties. A magistrate found that Lindsay had probable cause to arrest
Spiller.
A reasonably competent officer could have believed that probable cause
existed for his arrest. [he facts show that Spiller was interrupting Lindsay. Spiller
was only at the scene to pick up his girlfriend because her car crashed. When
Lindsay told Spiller’s girlfriend to go with the officer in the car, it was protocol to
get the car off the highway. Spiller had no reason to question the officer’s
judgment. He was not the subject of the investigation, his girlfriend was. He
continued to press Lindsay. A reasonable officer could think that a person
questioning orders is interfering with a police matter.
Lindsay had probable cause to arrest Spiller before Lindsay touched him.
Spiller shows no genuine issue of material fact that Lindsay’s arrest violated the
Fourth Amendment.
2. Bystander Liability.
An officer is liable for failure to intervene when that officer: (1) knew a
fellow officer was violating a person’s constitutional rights, (2) was present at the
scene of the violation, (3) had a reasonable opportunity to prevent the harm but
nevertheless, (4) chose not to act.
Spiller says Lindsay is liable as a bystander to other officers’ violation of
Spiller’s First and Fourth Amendment rights. Lindsay says he was unable to
intervene because he was trapped underneath Spiller and another officer. Based on
the video, it is unclear whether Lindsay was trapped. Still — Spiller’s constitutional
rights were not violated. Lindsay had probable cause to arrest Spiller and used
reasonable force to neutralize him. In a split second, the officers at the scene
reasonably responded to the fight with a taser when they saw Spiller resisting
arrest. Lindsay is still entitled to qualified immunity because Spiller’s bystander
liability claim fails.
"Dent v. Methodist Health Sys., 2021 WL 75768, at *2 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 8, 2021)
3. First Amendment.
To succeed on a First Amendment retaliation claim, Spiller must show: (1)
he was engaged in constitutionally protected activity, (2) that Lindsay’s actions
would chill a reasonable person from continuing to engage in that activity, and (3)
Lindsay was substantially motivated by Spiller’s constitutionally protected
- conduct.? Spiller says Lindsay arrested him in retaliation for his speech.
The Supreme Court has said a retaliatory arrest claim under the First
Amendment must show an absence of probable cause, unless there is evidence of
similarly-situated people who did not engage in protected speech that were not
arrested."° Spiller does not give any support to show that otherwise similarly
situated people who did not engage in his “protected speech” were not arrested.
Spiller was arrested for interfering with a police matter, not because he
asked questions to an officer. Lindsay answered his question about moving Spiller’s
girlfriend off the highway to another location. Spiller did not like the answer and
dismissed Lindsay’s orders. Because Lindsay had probable cause to arrest Spiller,
his First Amendment arrest claim fails.
4. Conclusion.
Corey Spiller’s claims against Jared Lindsay are dismissed.
Signed on January 14 2022, at Houston, Texas.
Lynn N. Hughes
United States District Judge
9 Alexander v. City of Round Rock, 854 F.3d 298 (5" Cir. 2017)