Reported / Citable
Background
Markise D. Amerson alleged that, while he was a pretrial detainee at the Tarrant County Jail, Officer M. Scott twice struck him in the face and mouth. According to the amended complaint, Scott then called for assistance, and two responding officers grabbed Amerson’s arms, forced them behind his back, twisted and jerked them, and pushed him against a wall and hallway bench.
The court construed the allegations concerning the two responding officers as applying to Officer Kevon Ferguson, who was identified as a backup officer, and an unidentified correctional officer. Amerson alleged that they continued using force after he screamed that they were hurting him and told them about an existing ligament injury. He alleged a cut to his right arm and additional pain from their conduct.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted Ferguson’s motion to dismiss and dismissed with prejudice the claims against both Ferguson and the unidentified officer. It held that the amended complaint did not plausibly allege excessive force because Amerson had not alleged more than a de minimis injury.
The court also held that the allegations did not overcome qualified immunity because they did not show that every reasonable officer confronting the situation would have understood the conduct to violate Amerson’s constitutional rights. The court declined to consider additional facts first asserted in Amerson’s response to the motion and denied further amendment as futile because those facts still did not allege more than a de minimis injury or negate qualified immunity.
The court directed entry of final judgment as to the dismissal of the claims against Ferguson, finding no just reason for delay. The opinion did not dispose of Amerson’s claims against Officer Scott.
Key Takeaways
- The court treated the amended complaint’s allegations about the two responding officers as allegations against Ferguson and the unidentified officer.
- The backup officers received qualified immunity because the pleaded injury was no more than de minimis and the allegations did not establish a violation apparent to every reasonable officer in the circumstances.
- New factual allegations in a response to a motion to dismiss could not supplement the amended complaint, and another amendment was denied as futile.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates that a pretrial detainee alleging objectively unreasonable force must plead an injury sufficient in the context of the force used and facts capable of overcoming qualified immunity. At the dismissal stage, additional details supplied only in briefing will not cure deficiencies in the operative complaint.