Jimerson v. Lewis

92 F.4th 277

Karen JIMERSON; JJ; JJ; XP; JP, Plaintiffs—Appellees, v. Mike LEWIS, LT, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 22-10441

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

FILED February 1, 2024

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, USDC No. 3:20-CV-2826, Sam A. Lindsay, U.S. District Judge

Ernest Eugene Reynolds, III (argued), Fort Worth, TX, Rose Linda Romero, Esq., Hurst, TX, for Plaintiffs-Appellees.

David Randall Montgomery, Esq. (argued), Alyssa M. Barreneche, D. Randall Montgomery & Associates, P.L.L.C., Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before Stewart, Dennis, and Southwick, Circuit Judges.

Leslie H. Southwick, Circuit Judge:

A search warrant showed the correct address for the target house, but police officers executed the warrant at an incorrect address. The homeowner brought suit against the officers under Section 1983. When denying summary judgment on the issue of qualified immunity for the officer who led the search, the district court held that fact questions prevented deciding the issue. We find no genuine disputes of material fact. The disputed issue is one of law. We conclude that this officer's efforts to identify the correct residence, though deficient, did not violate clearly established law. REVERSED and REMANDED for dismissal.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In March 2019, at approximately 7:15 p.m., Waxahachie Police Department ("WPD") SWAT Team Commander Mike Lewis received a call from a Drug Enforcement Administration ("DEA") officer. The DEA officer needed assistance executing a search warrant that night on a suspected methamphetamine "stash" house located at 573 8th Street, Lancaster, Texas ("target house"). The officer provided Commander Lewis with information about a drug deal involving the target house. Lewis requested further information, including pictures of the target house, whether "the location was fortified," whether "it appeared to have surveillance equipment," and whether "there were any exterior indicators on the property that children may be present." He also "requested identifying information on the [methamphetamine] seller, as well as prior law enforcement history at that address" involving the Lancaster Police Department ("LPD").

In response, Lewis received pictures showing the front of the house and was told there was "surveillance established at the location." DEA agents told Lewis that they saw no fortification or surveillance cameras at the property or any evidence of children. The agents had no description of the people occupying the target house.

Lewis entered the information into the WPD SWAT's risk analysis assessment worksheet, which scored the incident within the range for "optional SWAT deployment." Consequently, Lewis contacted the WPD Chief and received approval to activate the SWAT team. He also gathered information on the target house from the Dallas Central Appraisal District website, including that the house was 744 square feet, was built in 1952, and had a "large, deeply extending backyard."

Lewis then briefed SWAT officers at the WPD. The group decided to have a six-member team enter the target house and a three-member team enter the detached garage and backyard. Thereafter, Lewis received "real-time intelligence that surveillance officers at the scene reported a truck pulling a white box trailer [had] pulled up in front of the target location."¹ When Lewis received a copy of the warrant, he confirmed the address of the target house. The officers then finalized their preparations. LPD Officer Zachary Beauchamp led the SWAT team to the target house. Beauchamp was followed by the SWAT team vehicle, then Lewis in his marked patrol unit, then the Waxahachie K9, and then several unmarked DEA vehicles. Beauchamp was directed "to stop about a house before the target location, so SWAT officers could make an approach on foot."

When they arrived at the area, the SWAT team vehicle's driver saw Beauchamp's vehicle stop abruptly, "causing him to believe [Beauchamp] may have driven too far and stopped them too close to the target location." As the officers exited their vehicles, Beauchamp pointed to the house with the truck and white trailer in front of it, and officers began their approach. As the SWAT team began gathering on the front porch, however, Lewis realized that the house did not look like the house from intelligence photos. The SWAT team had assembled at 583 8th Street, not at the target house at 573 8th Street.

When Lewis looked one house to the left, he decided the layout of the front of that house matched the one in the intel photos. Lewis noticed that "[f]rom left to right, it had one large window, followed by the front entry door, followed by a small window and then [four] larger windows." He also noticed that "[t]he driveway was . . . on the left side of the property," and he believed numbers on the front of the house read "573," though the porch light obscured his view. This house, it turns out, was also the wrong house. The house Lewis identified was 593 8th Street, two doors down from the target house.

Nevertheless, Lewis told the team that they were at the wrong house and instructed them to "go to the house just to the left of the house where they were." That house was the home of plaintiffs Karen Jimerson, James Parks, and their two young sons and daughter. Officers ran to the front of the plaintiffs' house, deployed a flashbang, broke the front windows, and breached the door. The officers began a protective sweep and checked for occupants. They "encountered two females" whom they told to get on the ground. The officers then encountered an adult male, but before they could direct him to get down, SWAT team members yelled "Wrong House!"

The SWAT team left the plaintiffs' home and proceeded to the target house. After the target house was secured, Lewis returned to the plaintiffs' house, where he joined other DEA agents who were already checking on the plaintiffs' welfare. Plaintiff Karen Jimerson reported some pain in her side. Lewis called an ambulance and she was taken to the hospital. Lewis also coordinated with a glass company to make repairs and remained on the scene until 1:30 a.m.

A WPD internal investigation determined that "reasonable and normal protocol was completely overlooked" and the WPD Chief of Police stated that these kinds of mistakes should not happen. Lewis was suspended for two days without pay.

In September 2020, the plaintiffs brought this action under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. They alleged violations of the Fourth Amendment and several state laws against 20 John Doe defendants. They later amended their complaint, naming each of the individuals in the WPD SWAT team who executed the warrant, including Lewis. Shortly thereafter, the plaintiffs' state-law tort claims were dismissed. The defendants moved for summary judgment based on qualified immunity, and the matter was referred to a magistrate judge for pretrial management.

The magistrate judge recommended the district court grant qualified immunity to all the officers, whether they entered the house or not. The magistrate judge also concluded the plaintiffs failed to show that Lewis did not make reasonable efforts to identify the target house.

The district court agreed with the magistrate judge's analysis on qualified immunity except with respect to whether Lewis made reasonable efforts to identify the target house. The court found "a genuine dispute of material fact regarding whether [Lewis] made the necessary reasonable effort to identify the correct residence and whether his actions were '[in]consistent with a reasonable effort to ascertain and identify the place intended to be searched,' " quoting Maryland v. Garrison, 480 U.S. 79, 88, 107 S.Ct. 1013, 94 L.Ed.2d 72 (1987). The court denied Lewis qualified immunity. Lewis timely appealed.

DISCUSSION

Under the collateral order doctrine, "the denial of a motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity is immediately appealable . . . to the extent that it turns on an issue of law." Melton v. Phillips, 875 F.3d 256, 261 (5th Cir. 2017) (citation omitted). Our summary judgment review is de novo. Joseph ex rel. Joseph v. Bartlett, 981 F.3d 319, 331 (5th Cir. 2020). Our review is limited to considering issues of law, including the legal significance of factual disputes identified by the district court. Id. at 331. That means "we may evaluate whether a factual dispute is material (i.e., legally significant), but we may not evaluate whether it is genuine (i.e., exists)." Id. (emphasis in original). "Because the plaintiff is the non-moving party, we construe all facts and inferences in the light most favorable to the plaintiff." Melton, 875 F.3d at 261.

"A public official is entitled to qualified immunity unless the plaintiff demonstrates that (1) the defendant violated the plaintiff's constitutional rights and (2) the defendant's actions were objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law at the time of the violation." Porter v. Epps, 659 F.3d 440, 445 (5th Cir. 2011).

As a preliminary matter, Lewis argues the plaintiffs failed to plead and argue that his efforts to identify the correct house were unreasonable. A plaintiff seeking to overcome qualified immunity "must specifically identify each defendant's personal involvement in the alleged wrongdoing." Thomas v. Humfield, 32 F.3d 566, 1994 WL 442484, at *5 (5th Cir. 1994). The plaintiffs complied with the need for specificity by alleging in the complaint that Lewis "was the person in charge" of the mistaken raid on their home, and in their summary judgment arguments that Lewis was the "overall leader of [the] misconduct" and that he overlooked "reasonable and normal protocol."

As to the merits, Lewis does not challenge the district court's analysis of whether defendants violated the plaintiffs' rights under federal law. The Fourth Amendment provides that individuals have a right "to be secure in their persons,...