Norman v. Ingle

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · August 15, 2025 · No. 24-20431

Summary

This Fifth Circuit per curiam opinion reverses the district court’s denial of qualified immunity motions filed by two sheriff’s deputies sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Relying on clear video evidence, the court determined that the deputies' use of force was objectively reasonable after the plaintiff attempted to strike an officer and place him in a headlock, finding no genuine disputes of material fact. The court also held that the plaintiff abandoned or failed to adequately brief claims regarding delayed medical care, failure to intervene, wrongful arrest, malicious prosecution, and First Amendment violations. Accordingly, the appellate court reversed the lower court's judgment and granted the defendants qualified immunity.

Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Writing for the Court
Higginbotham; Jones; Southwick
Jurisdiction
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Decision date
August 15, 2025
Docket number
24-20431
Procedural posture
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas
Standard of review
De novo review of qualified immunity and summary‑judgment issues
Precedential value
published
Parties
Lee Ingle; Christopher Sutton v. Evan Norman
Disposition
reversed

Topics

section 1983qualified immunitycivil rightsappellate jurisdictionstandard of review

Practice areas

civil rights

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the deputies are entitled to qualified immunity for the alleged excessive‑force, denial‑of‑medical‑care, failure‑to‑intervene, false‑arrest, malicious‑prosecution, and First Amendment claims.
  2. Whether genuine disputes of material fact preclude summary‑judgment review of the qualified‑immunity defenses.
  3. Whether this court has jurisdiction to review the district court’s denial of summary judgment.

Holdings

  1. The deputies are entitled to qualified immunity because the plaintiffs failed to show that any of the asserted constitutional rights were clearly established at the time of the incident.
  2. No genuine dispute of material fact exists; the video evidence provides clear clarity that a reasonable jury could not find a constitutional violation.
  3. The court has interlocutory jurisdiction to review the denial of summary judgment on qualified‑immunity grounds.

Key quotations

We find no questions of material fact or denial of constitutional rights, and that the Deputies are entitled to qualified immunity. We REVERSE the judgment of the district court. (Page 1)

Factual background

On March 21, 2021, Evan Norman was removed from a bar by Deputy Lee Ingle and Deputy Christopher Sutton. A confrontation ensued during which both deputies struck Norman multiple times, restrained him, and left him face‑down for approximately ten minutes before seeking medical assistance. Norman sustained facial injuries. He sued the deputies and Harris County under §1983 for excessive force, denial of medical care, failure to intervene, false arrest, malicious prosecution, and First Amendment violations.

Procedural history

The district court denied the deputies' motions for summary judgment, finding genuine disputes of material fact regarding excessive force, denial of medical care, and other constitutional claims. The deputies appealed the denial.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…