Background
Arlington police officers responded to a report that Jesse Fischer was slumped over in his car. Fischer repeatedly declined commands to turn off the car and exit, then drove away at about 20 miles per hour. During the ensuing pursuit, he generally remained below the speed limit and stopped at traffic signals, but he also drove outside his lane, scraped a curb, disregarded commands, and continued driving after Officer Robert Phillips told him he was under arrest for evading.
Fischer eventually entered a cul-de-sac where police vehicles blocked the exit. As he completed a U-turn, his car traveled toward the officers and their vehicles at approximately five miles per hour without stopping or slowing. Phillips fired six shots through the windshield, fatally wounding him. Cyndi Fischer sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging excessive force, and asserted Texas wrongful-death and survival claims. The district court held that Phillips was entitled to qualified immunity and declined supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding that Phillips’s use of deadly force was not objectively unreasonable. Video incorporated into the pleadings conclusively contradicted the complaint’s allegation that Fischer was driving to the side and away from the officers: the recordings showed that his vehicle was moving directly toward them when Phillips fired. Fischer was also suspected of driving while intoxicated, had repeatedly refused commands, had continued fleeing after being told he was under arrest, and had told Phillips that things would not end well for him.
The court distinguished precedent involving an officer who fired at the back of a vehicle traveling away. It concluded that Fifth Circuit decisions involving vehicles approaching officers supported the reasonableness of Phillips’s rapid response to the perceived threat, even though Fischer was moving slowly and did not suddenly accelerate. Because dismissal of the federal claims left no claims within the district court’s original jurisdiction, the court also held that declining supplemental jurisdiction over the Texas claims was not an abuse of discretion.
Key Takeaways
- At the pleading stage, video incorporated into a complaint controls when it blatantly contradicts factual allegations that no reasonable jury could accept.
- An officer’s use of deadly force was objectively reasonable where a fleeing driver’s vehicle was moving directly toward officers after repeated refusals to obey commands.
- A vehicle’s low speed and lack of sudden acceleration did not eliminate the immediate threat presented by its direction of travel and proximity to the officers.
- After properly dismissing all federal claims before trial, the district court acted within its discretion by declining supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that, in Fifth Circuit excessive-force cases involving vehicles, the vehicle’s direction of travel at the moment force is used may be decisive. It also shows that courts may resolve qualified immunity on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion when properly incorporated video conclusively establishes facts inconsistent with the complaint.