Lewis v. Delgado

Lewis · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · January 7, 2026 · No. 24-20484

Summary

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity to five police officers who handcuffed Michael Lewis for approximately six minutes during a high-risk vehicle stop. The court held that, even assuming the officers knew of Lewis’s dialysis-related stent, their conduct did not violate clearly established law. The court therefore did not separately decide whether the officers used excessive force under the Fourth Amendment.

Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Writing for the Court
Edith H. Jones; King; Wilson
Jurisdiction
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Decision date
January 7, 2026
Docket number
24-20484
Procedural posture
The defendant police officers appealed the district court's denial of qualified immunity on Michael Lewis's excessive-force claim at the summary-judgment stage.
Standard of review
De novo review of a district court's denial of qualified immunity at the summary-judgment stage; summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine dispute of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Precedential value
published
Parties
John Delgado, Adam Vasquez, Arthur Love, John Clausen, Matthew Newport v. Michael Lewis, Regina Armstead
Disposition
reversed

Topics

qualified immunitycivil rightssummary judgmentstandard of reviewappellate procedure

Practice areas

civil rightsconstitutional lawqualified immunityappellate procedurecivil procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the officers were entitled to qualified immunity on Lewis's excessive-force claim despite a factual dispute about when they learned of his preexisting medical condition.
  2. Whether briefly handcuffing Lewis during a high-risk stop while officers searched for armed suspects violated a clearly established Fourth Amendment right.

Holdings

  1. The officers were entitled to qualified immunity because, with or without advance notice of Lewis's medical condition, their conduct did not violate a clearly established constitutional right.
  2. The notice dispute did not preclude summary judgment because it could not affect the outcome under the clearly-established-law analysis.

Key quotations

With or without notice, the Officers’ conduct does not amount to a violation of clearly established law. (at 5)
None of our cases prohibit briefly handcuffing a suspect during a high-risk stop while officers strive to secure the scene, even if it takes the officers a few minutes to remove the cuffs once the scene is secure. (at 9)
Because the absence of clearly established law is dispositive, we do not separately assess whether the Officers’ actions constituted excessive force under the Fourth Amendment. (at 9)

Factual background

Police stopped a vehicle matching the description of a car associated with a report of armed suspects and conducted a high-risk vehicle stop. Officers ordered the occupants to exit one at a time and handcuffed Michael Lewis, who had a dialysis-related stent in his left forearm, for approximately six minutes while they secured the scene. Lewis alleged that he informed the officers of his condition before or immediately after handcuffing, while the officers disputed when they learned of it; Lewis later experienced wrist pain and required surgery to repair the damaged stent.

Procedural history

Lewis and Armstead sued the City of Rosenberg, the Rosenberg Police Department, and the defendant officers on various claims, including excessive force. After some claims were dismissed, the district court adopted a magistrate judge's recommendation granting qualified immunity on all claims except Lewis's excessive-force claim against the five officers. The Fifth Circuit reversed the denial of qualified immunity.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…