Kevin Tarver v. Michael Hernandez, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas considers Officers Michael Hernandez’s and Doug Downing’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 excessive-force action arising from the death of Darius Tarver during a police encounter. The court concludes that the officers are entitled to qualified immunity, determining that the taser deployment and shootings were objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment and that the claims therefore should be dismissed.

Holdings

1. Officer Hernandez's first use of the taser was objectively reasonable under the totality of the circumstances and did not violate the Fourth Amendment. He was therefore entitled to qualified immunity.
2. Officer Hernandez's second use of the taser was objectively reasonable and did not violate the Fourth Amendment.
3. Officer Downing's two uses of deadly force were objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, and he was entitled to qualified immunity.
4. Even assuming a constitutional violation, neither officer violated a clearly established Fourth Amendment right because the plaintiff identified no controlling or persuasive precedent placing the unlawfulness of the officers' particular conduct beyond debate.
5. The officers were not required under clearly established law to accommodate Tarver's mental distress by delaying or avoiding otherwise reasonable force when he was armed, noncompliant, and posed a threat to the officers or others.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Officer Hernandez's first and second deployments of a taser violated Tarver's Fourth Amendment right to be free from excessive force.
2. Whether Officer Downing's two uses of deadly force violated Tarver's Fourth Amendment right to be free from excessive force.
3. Whether the officers were entitled to qualified immunity because their conduct was objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.
4. Whether the officers were entitled to qualified immunity because the alleged constitutional violations were not clearly established at the time of the encounter.
5. Whether Tarver's mental distress required the officers to accommodate his condition or delay using force under the circumstances.

Disposition

dismissed