The opinion
Case: 21-51160 Document: 00516972189 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/17/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
____________
November 17, 2023
No. 21-51160 Lyle W. Cayce
____________ Clerk
Cruz E. Sanchez,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Sheriff Mike Griffis; Chief Deputy Mancha;
Captain McNeil; Lieutenant Durham;
Sergeant Galvan; Corporal Garcia; Officer Salgado;
Officer Ibarra,
Defendants—Appellees.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 7:20-CV-269
______________________________
Before Jones, Barksdale, and Elrod, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Appellant Cruz E. Sanchez, proceeding pro se on appeal, was injured
during an encounter with Officers Benjamin Salgado and Nicholas Ybarra at
Ector County Detention Center, where he was a pretrial detainee. He sued
_____________________
*
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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set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: 21-51160 Document: 00516972189 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/17/2023
No. 21-51160
several officers, including Officers Salgado and Ybarra, under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. His complaint included claims for excessive force and failure to
supervise and also sought criminal prosecution of Officers Salgado and
Ybarra. The district court granted summary judgment to the Officers on all
federal claims and declined to consider any state law claims Sanchez may
have asserted. Sanchez appealed. 1
This court reviews a district court’s grant of a motion for summary
judgment de novo. Linbrugger v. Abercia, 363 F.3d 537, 540 (5th Cir. 2004).
The summary judgment evidence in this case includes footage of the
incident. Because video evidence is available, the court is required to “view[]
the facts in the light depicted by the videotape.” Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S.
372, 381, 127 S. Ct. 1769, 1776 (2007).
Government officials “are entitled to qualified immunity . . . unless
(1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the
unlawfulness of their conduct was clearly established at the time.” District
of Columbia v. Wesby, 583 U.S. 48, 62–63, 138 S. Ct. 577, 589 (2018) (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted). To prevail on an excessive force
claim, a plaintiff must show “that the force purposely or knowingly used
against him was objectively unreasonable.” Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 576 U.S.
389, 397, 135 S. Ct. 2466, 2473 (2015). As a pretrial detainee, Sanchez “can
prevail by providing only objective evidence that the challenged
governmental action is not rationally related to a legitimate governmental
objective or that it is excessive in relation to that purpose.” Id. at 398,
135 S. Ct. at 2473–74. Factors relevant to a determination of reasonableness
include the relationship between the need for the use of force and the amount
_____________________
1
Sanchez has filed several motions in this court, including one to appoint counsel
and several seeking production of documents and other evidence. These motions are
DENIED.
2
Case: 21-51160 Document: 00516972189 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/17/2023
No. 21-51160
of force used, efforts to temper or to limit force, the threat reasonably
perceived by the officer, the extent of the plaintiff’s injury, and whether the
plaintiff was resisting. Id. at 397, 135 S. Ct. at 2473.
Sanchez was classified as a maximum-security inmate due to his
extensive criminal history and several infractions (for “erratic,
uncooperative, and, in some cases, threatening behavior”) he committed
before the incident. Because of his erratic and aggressive behavior, Sanchez
was required to be handcuffed and shackled whenever he was transported to
the medical office to receive treatment for his diabetes. The day of the
incident, Sanchez refused to be handcuffed for medical transport. It was only
after Sanchez persisted in his refusals, walking briskly toward the medical
office with his hands free, that Officer Salgado performed a takedown
maneuver. The process of handcuffing Sanchez included Officer Salgado
striking Sanchez twice on the side so that he would remove his hands from
under his torso. After Officer Salgado, with the help of Officer Ybarra,
handcuffed Sanchez and pulled him to his feet, the two Officers again
attempted to transport Sanchez to the medical office. As they approached
the office, however, Sanchez began pulling away from Officer Ybarra in an
apparent attempt to free himself. This resulted in his again being taken to
the ground.
Sanchez has failed to raise a fact issue on the reasonableness of force
the Officers used to subdue him. His disobedience of orders and his history
of erratic and aggressive behavior, including on the day of the incident,
indicate that the force was not objectively unreasonable, as the district court
concluded. The Officers are therefore entitled to qualified immunity as to
Sanchez’s excessive force claim.
As to Sanchez’s other claims, he certainly does not have a right to have
either Officer prosecuted for assault. Oliver v. Collins, 914 F.2d 56, 60 (5th
3
Case: 21-51160 Document: 00516972189 Page: 4 Date Filed: 11/17/2023
No. 21-51160
Cir. 1990). And because his underlying claim for excessive force fails, any
claims for bystander liability, supervisory liability, municipal liability, or
conspiracy also fail. See Whitley v. Hanna, 726 F.3d 631, 648–49 (5th Cir.
2013); Hale v. Townley, 45 F.3d 914, 921 (5th Cir. 1995). Nor will Sanchez’s
First Amendment claim be considered, as it was raised for the first time on
appeal. See Leverette v. Louisville Ladder Co., 183 F.3d 339, 342 (5th Cir.
1999). Finally, Sanchez forfeited any argument as to dismissal without
prejudice of his state law claims by failing to brief it on appeal. See Biziko v.
Van Horne, 981 F.3d 418, 419 (5th Cir. 2020).
The district court’s grant of summary judgment is AFFIRMED.
4