Appeals Court Affirms Dismissal of All Constitutional Claims Against City of Arlington, 15 Officers

Constitutional Claims Arising from Police-Cadet Training

The Plaintiff brought constitutional claims on behalf of herself as surviving spouse, her child, and the estate of her husband Marquis Kennedy. Mr. Kennedy was a cadet at the City of Arlington Police Academy who suffered a cardiac arrest after a self-defense simulation course called Gracie Survival Tactics, which was part of the mandatory cadet training program.

Plaintiff alleged that Mr. Kennedy was subjected to various “jiu-jitsu submission holds, choke holds, compression holds, punches and wrestling” and although he complained of lightheadedness, thirst, and fatigue, he was denied water and any opportunity to take a break. Plaintiff further alleged that Mr. Kennedy had dropped an “officer in distress” card that should have ended the training, but trainers continued to use excessive force in the training.

The instructors stopped the simulation after about fifteen minutes and asked if Mr. Kennedy needed an ambulance, to which he replied, “Yes.” An ambulance was called, then Mr. Kennedy stopped breathing and lost consciousness. Instructors began CPR and administered an AED in an attempt to revive Mr. Kennedy. Paramedics were able to resuscitate him using oral intubation and transported him to a hospital where he never regained consciousness and died two days later.

Plaintiff sued the City and all officers present at the training simulation and claimed the instructors violated Mr. Kennedy’s Fourth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Plaintiff also asserted bystander-liability claims against officers who were present, but did not participate in, the simulation. Finally, Plaintiff contended the City was liable for failing to train its officers on use of excessive force and medical distress signs.

The City submitted a video recording of the training simulation, which Plaintiff viewed and relied on in drafting a supporting affidavit for her claims. A magistrate judge concluded that the Plaintiff failed to (1) plausibly allege a Fourth Amendment seizure; (2) state a Fourteenth Amendment substantive-due-process violation; or (3) establish any constitutional duty to provide medical care in an employment setting. The magistrate judge therefore held that qualified immunity applied and recommended dismissing all claims against the officers and the City. The district court adopted the magistrate judge’s findings and conclusions in full.

The Plaintiff appealed.

Appeals Court Reviews District Court Judgment

The Fifth Circuit began by reviewing whether courts can consider video evidence submitted by the Defendant in ruling on a motion to dismiss. The court found that since the Plaintiff cites the recording in the complaint and it is central to Plaintiff’s claims that the district court did not err in considering the video.

The Fifth Circuit also reviewed the district courts holding that qualified immunity bars Plaintiff’s Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment claims against the instructors. Qualified-immunity defenses are analyzed under a two-prong inquiry and courts may address the prongs “in either order” and may “resolve the case on a single prong.” First, the plaintiff must plausibly allege that there was a violation of a federal statutory or constitutional right by the officers. The second prong requires that the unlawfulness of the conduct be “clearly established at the time” of the alleged misconduct.

Regarding the Fourth Amendment claims, the Fifth Circuit determined that the instructors running Mr. Kennedy’s training simulation did not intend to restrain or harm him. They applied force to Marquis for instructional purposes during a structured self-defense simulation. The complaint lacks nonconclusory facts suggesting otherwise. The complaint therefore fails to plausibly allege the willfulness necessary to establish a Fourth Amendment seizure. Additionally, the court found that the video recording contradicted the claim that Mr. Kennedy withdrew his consent during the simulation.

For the claim that the instructors violated Mr. Kennedy’s substantive-due process rights, the appeals court found that the Plaintiff must allege more than an unsafe training environment and must show that the instructors intended to harm Mr. Kennedy, which they found that the complaint was insufficient in proving.

On the Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment claims, the appeals court found that Mr. Kennedy voluntarily submitted to the training as part of his at-will employment relationship and was not a detainee or in state custody. Therefore, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment.