Summary Judgment

Crane v. City of Arlington, Texas, 50 F.4th 453 (5th Cir. 2022)

PATRICK E. HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judge

In 1996, the Supreme Court approved the use of pretextual stops in Whren v. United States. Since then, pretextual stops have become a cornerstone of law enforcement practice. Police officers follow a suspicious person until they identify a traffic violation to make a lawful stop, even though the officer intends to use the stop to investigate a hunch that, by itself, would not amount to reasonable suspicion or probable cause. Often pulled over for minor traffic violations, these stops create grounds for violent—and often deadly—encounters that disproportionately harm people of color.

When Whren was decided, the Court did not have what we have now—twenty-five years of data on the effects of pretextual stops. Indeed, the Whren Court differentiated pretextual stops from “extreme practices” like the use of deadly force. Today, traffic stops and the use of deadly force are too often one and the same—with Black and Latino drivers overrepresented among those killed—and have been sanctioned by numerous counties and major police departments.

While several major cities have restricted the practice, in much of America, police traffic stops still seine for warrants despite the shadows of Monell v. Department of Social Services, where a § 1983 claim can succeed against a city with a showing that city policy was the moving force behind a constitutional injury, and was implemented with deliberate indifference to the known or obvious consequence that constitutional violations would result. The potential liability attending a policy of pretextual stops aside, their empirical consequences are clear: they lead to the unnecessary and tragic ending of human life. Here, a child threw a candy cane out the window. Twenty-five minutes later, the driver, her father, was dead.

To be clear, we apply only settled laws that govern this case today, cast as they are against the larger frame of their play in the streets across the country.

I.

Tavis Crane’s estate and the passengers of Crane’s car sued Arlington Police Officer Craig Roper and the City of Arlington for the use of excessive force during a traffic stop in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The district court dismissed the passengers’ claims, finding that they could not bring claims as bystanders, and granted summary judgment to Roper and the City after determining that Roper was entitled to qualified immunity. We affirm the dismissal of the passengers’ claims and vacate the grant of summary judgment on Crane’s claims and remand to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

On February 1, 2017, Tavis Crane was driving in Arlington, Texas with three passengers: Dwight Jefferson, Valencia Johnson, who was pregnant with Crane’s child, and Z.C., Crane’s two-year-old daughter. While Crane was stopped at a traffic light at approximately 11:38 p.m., Officer Elsie Bowden pulled up behind him. After the light turned green, Crane pulled away from the intersection and Bowden saw an object being tossed from the passenger’s side. She claims that she thought the object might be a crack pipe and called for backup; Roper responded.

Bowden turned on her police car’s lights and Crane pulled over. Bowden approached the passenger side of the vehicle and asked Jefferson what he threw out the window. Jefferson replied that the only thing he threw was a cigarette butt. Bowden asked Crane for his driver’s license and proof of insurance. Crane provided Bowden with his identification card, as he did not have a driver’s license. Bowden then noticed an object fall on the ground behind her, outside the window by Z.C. She recognized the object as the red top of a large plastic Christmas candy cane and realized the object thrown from the car was the candy cane’s clear bottom half. Bowden laughed about the misunderstanding and handed the red piece back to Z.C. But she did not send the family on. Rather, she returned to her vehicle and ran a warrant check, which found that Crane had warrants for several misdemeanors and a possible felony probation violation.

Bowden requested additional backup and confirmation of the warrants and was informed that Officer Eddie Johnson was also en route. While waiting for the other officers to arrive, she confirmed five misdemeanor warrants from Grand Prairie but was still waiting for a reply from Dallas County for the felony probation warrant, and began writing Crane a citation for driving without a license.

At 11:47 p.m., Officer Johnson arrived. Bowden informed him that the passengers had been cooperative and that she wasn’t sure if Crane even knew he had a warrant out. Roper arrived after that conversation and received no briefing, knowing only the information relayed to his in-car computer display, which showed Crane’s unconfirmed outstanding warrant for a felony probation violation.

All three officers then approached Crane’s car at 11:50 p.m., by which point Crane had rolled up his window almost entirely. Bowden stood next to Crane’s window; Roper was behind Bowden, next to Valencia Johnson, with Officer Johnson on the other side of the car, next to Jefferson. Bowden asked Crane to step out of the car because he had outstanding warrants, which Crane denied. Bowden told Crane that if he did not get out of the car, he would face additional charges. Crane said he needed to get Z.C. home to her mother. Bowden asked if he could leave Z.C. with the other passengers and alternatively offered to call someone to pick her up. Crane refused, insisting that he did not have any outstanding warrants and reiterating that he was not getting out. Bowden told him five tickets had been confirmed. Crane asked what the warrants were for. Bowden said she didn’t know yet. Bowden told Crane, “I need you to step out of the car, honey. Tavis if you go and do something stupid then we are gonna be breaking windows, it’s gonna get crazy, it ain’t worth it.”

Officer Johnson ordered Jefferson, sitting in the passenger seat, to turn off the car and give him the key. Jefferson began moving his hand toward the key to comply, but Crane told him to stop. Roper then ordered Valencia Johnson to unlock the rear driver’s side door where she was seated; she did. Roper opened the door, unholstered his pistol, and ordered everyone to put their “f—ing hands up.” Crane, Jefferson, and Valencia Johnson all put their hands up. He initially pointed his pistol at Jefferson before entering the car, climbing over Valencia Johnson, and pointing his gun at Crane.

According to the passengers, Roper put his arm around Crane’s neck. Roper contends that he grabbed the hood of Crane’s sweatshirt. All three officers continued to order Crane to open the door and turn the car off. Officer Johnson circled behind Crane’s car to move next to Bowden as she shouted “Tavis don’t do it.” The car engine began to rev, and the car shook as the brake lights turned on and off sporadically. Bowden reached for Roper in the back seat, and told Roper three times to “get out” of the car. Roper remained in the car. Officer Johnson broke the window next to Crane with his baton as Bowden began to move toward the rear of the car.

The passengers contend that when Crane, with Roper’s gun pointed at him, moved his hand to turn off the car in compliance with Roper’s order, Roper shot him, his head fell backwards, the engine revved and the car lurched backward, striking Bowden—by now behind the car—before moving forward and running over Bowden again and speeding off.

Roper claims that Crane shifted the car in gear while the two struggled, and that it was only after the car ran over Bowden and after Roper warned Crane that he would kill him if Crane did not stop the car that Roper shot Crane twice. Roper claims that the first two shots “did not cause Crane to stop the vehicle, so he fired two other shots.”

After Roper shot Crane, the car careened down the road and Roper took the keys out of the ignition and steered the car to a stop. Officer Johnson caught up in his squad car and told Roper to pull Crane from the driver’s seat and perform CPR. Roper continued to shout and curse at Crane, asking why he had not stopped, but Crane was silent. An autopsy concluded that Crane was shot four times and died of gunshot wounds to his abdomen.

II.

On January 31, 2019, Crane’s mother, as the administrator of Crane’s estate and on behalf of his surviving children, and the other passengers filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against the City of Arlington and Officer Roper, individually and in his official capacity. The plaintiffs allege that Roper violated their Fourth Amendment rights and that the City is liable under Monell v. Department of Social Services.

The City and Roper moved to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims. The district court concluded that the passengers—Jefferson, Valencia Johnson, and Z.C.—could not bring claims as bystanders and dismissed their claims with prejudice but denied the motions to dismiss Crane’s claims.

Asserting qualified immunity, Roper then moved for summary judgment, which the district court granted. The district court acknowledged that Valencia Johnson and Roper presented different accounts of when the first shot occurred, but found that “a reasonable jury could not believe the passengers’ account of the shooting.” Finding Roper entitled to qualified immunity, the district court dismissed Crane’s claims against Roper and the City with prejudice. The plaintiffs timely appealed the order on the motion to dismiss and the grant of summary judgment.

IV.

First, we review the district court’s grant of summary judgment. “When a defendant official moves for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity, ‘the burden then shifts to the plaintiff, who must rebut the defense by establishing a genuine fact issue as to whether the official’s allegedly wrongful conduct violated clearly established law.’” All facts must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmovant and all justifiable inferences must be drawn in his favor.

When there is video evidence in the record, courts are not bound to accept the nonmovant’s version of the facts if it is contradicted by the video. But when video evidence is ambiguous or incomplete, the modified rule from Scott v. Harris has no application. Thus, “a court should not discount the nonmoving party’s story unless the video evidence provides so much clarity that a reasonable jury could not believe his account.”

The district court acknowledged the competing factual accounts—specifically when Roper shot Crane—but relied on the dashcam video from Bowden’s patrol car to reject Crane’s account and adopt Roper’s account. But the video does not clearly contradict Crane’s account of events such that the district court was entitled to adopt Roper’s factual account at the summary judgment stage. “Scott was not an invitation for trial courts to abandon the standard principles of summary judgment by making credibility determinations or otherwise weighing the parties’ opposing evidence against each other any time a video is introduced into evidence.”

What happened inside Crane’s car is not visible in the dashcam video. As such, the video does not resolve the relevant factual disputes. It is not clear from the video when Roper shot Crane, when Crane became unconscious, whether the car moved before or after Roper shot Crane, and whether Roper had his arm around Crane’s neck or was grabbing Crane’s sweatshirt. Because the video evidence does not clearly contradict Crane’s account, for purposes of this appeal, we must take Crane’s account as true—that Roper had Crane in a chokehold and that Roper shot Crane before the car began to move.

The district court found that the gear could change and the car could move only with the conscious intention of Crane. But that conclusion ignores the other plausible explanation that the gears were shifted during the struggle between Crane and Roper, as Crane attempted to comply with Roper, and that the chokehold caused Crane to press down on the accelerator as an attempt to relieve the stress on his neck, as opposed to attempting to flee. When two conclusions are plausible, at the summary judgment stage, we must accept as true that which is most favorable to the nonmovant. The district court erred by applying its own interpretation of the video and accepting Roper’s factual account over Crane’s of what occurred inside the car. “At the summary judgment stage the judge’s function is not himself to weigh the evidence and determine the truth of the matter,” that job is reserved for the jury.

A.

Next, we must consider whether Roper is entitled to qualified immunity under Crane’s account of events. We hold he is not at this stage.

“The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” When reviewing a motion for summary judgment based upon the affirmative defense of qualified immunity, we engage in a two-pronged inquiry. First, the constitutional question, asking whether the officer’s conduct violated a federal right. Second, asking whether that right was clearly established at the time of the violation.

The constitutional question in this case is governed by the principles enunciated in Tennessee v. Garner and Graham v. Connor, which establish that claims of excessive force are determined under the Fourth Amendment’s “objective reasonableness” standard. Specifically regarding deadly force, Justice White explained in Garner that it is unreasonable for an officer to “seize an unarmed, non-dangerous suspect by shooting him dead;” but, “where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force.”

We analyze the reasonableness of the force used under factors drawn from Graham, including the severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect poses a threat to the safety of the officers or others, and whether the suspect is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest. While all factors are relevant, the “threat-of-harm factor typically predominates the analysis when deadly force has been deployed.” The reasonableness is judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, and only the facts then knowable to the defendant officers may be considered.

First, we address whether Crane posed an immediate threat to the safety of the officers. Accepting the facts as the passengers allege, Crane was shot while unarmed with Roper’s arm around his neck. Roper first argues that he had a reasonable fear that Crane might have a weapon. But from his position, Roper could see if Crane was reaching for a gun, as could the other officers outside the vehicle, yet none of them—including Roper—reported a suspicion of a weapon. Roper could not have reasonably suspected that Crane had a weapon.

Roper alternatively contends that the threat came from the car. As seen in the video, prior to the first shot, Crane’s car was parked, the engine revved, and the tires spun. As the district court noted, Roper was inside the car with the door open, so had Crane sped off, Roper could have fallen out and been seriously injured. However, accepting the facts as Crane alleges, Roper shot Crane while the car was still in park and before the car began to move. As Roper was not at imminent risk of being expelled from a parked car, the vehicle did not in this sense pose a serious threat. Roper also asserts that Bowden and Officer Johnson were in danger, but at the time Roper shot Crane, Bowden and Officer Johnson were standing to the side of Crane’s car, not behind it, unlikely to be hit by the car. Ultimately, the car was not a threat until it began to move, which did not occur until Roper shot Crane. Whether Roper’s use of deadly force was reasonable may well turn on whether the car was in park or moving at the moment Roper shot Crane. But that is a question for the jury.

Finally, this Court considers the speed with which an officer resorts to force where officers deliberately, and rapidly, eschew lesser responses when such means are plainly available and obviously recommended by the situation. Officer Bowden demonstrated an admirable attempt to negotiate with Crane. Roper, on the other hand, shot Crane less than one minute after he drew his pistol and entered Crane’s backseat aside a pregnant woman and a two-year-old. Not only was the option to get out of the car—as opposed to shooting Crane—plainly available, but Bowden, reached into the backseat to touch Roper, repeatedly urging Roper to “get out” of the car, reflecting the sound view that they could not use deadly force to keep Crane from fleeing. But Roper remained in the car, shooting Crane just seconds later. A reasonable jury could conclude that reasonable officers, like Bowden, would have been keenly aware that deadly force should not have been used, and that instead, Crane should have been let go to take his child home; that Crane did not pose a threat of harm such that the use of deadly force was reasonable. The threat-posed factor favors Crane.

While the remaining two factors do not weigh as heavily upon our analysis, they yet demand attention. As to the severity of the crime at issue, Roper was attempting to effect an arrest for an unconfirmed felony probation violation warrant and multiple confirmed misdemeanor warrants. Although police officers have the right to order a driver to exit the car, they cannot use excessive force to accomplish that end. Reasonable officers could debate the level of force required to effect an arrest given the severity of the violations at issue, but neither of the other officers felt the need to enter the car or draw their pistols to address the severity of the violation. Rather, the arresting officer attempted to intervene to stop Roper. This factor favors Crane.

The third Graham factor is whether Crane was actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by fleeing. “Officers may consider a suspect’s refusal to comply with instructions during a traffic stop in assessing whether physical force is needed to effectuate the suspect’s compliance.” While Crane was compliant with Bowden’s initial requests, he refused to comply once the officers attempted to arrest him. It is clear from the video that the officers attempted to arrest Crane peacefully, but he refused to cooperate. Bowden first told Crane to step out of the car and within one minute she informed him that there was an outstanding warrant for his arrest. Two minutes later, Roper entered the vehicle and applied physical force, grabbing Crane, and pointing his gun at him. The other officers continued to order Crane to turn off the vehicle. On the present record, Roper shot Crane within 30 seconds of entering Crane’s vehicle, as Crane reached to turn off the vehicle. The car was in park and Crane pressed the accelerator to relieve the pressure on his neck. Taking the facts as we must, a jury may well conclude that it was not reasonable for Roper to believe that Crane was attempting to flee or that any such attempt to do so posed a threat to life. Additionally, “officers must assess not only the need for force, but also ‘the relationship between the need and the amount of force used.’” The only confirmed warrants against Crane were for misdemeanors. A jury could reasonably find that the degree of force the officers used was not justifiable under the circumstances. This factor favors Crane. In sum, with all three of the Graham factors favoring Crane, Crane prevails.

Crane argues, notwithstanding the Graham factors, that Roper created the situation by escalating the confrontation—entering the car and grabbing Crane. But our precedent dictates that the threat be examined only at the moment deadly force is used and that an officer’s conduct leading to that point is not considered. Roper’s actions prior to the moment he used deadly force, escalatory as they were, cannot be considered. The issue is not whether Roper created the need for deadly force, the issue is whether there was a reasonable need for deadly force.

Under the Graham factors, Roper’s use of deadly force was unreasonable. Because Roper’s use of force in this situation was unreasonable, violating Crane’s Fourth Amendment right, we now turn to the clearly established prong.

B.

The second step of the qualified immunity inquiry is asking “whether the violated constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the violation.” The purpose of this inquiry is to determine whether the officer “had fair notice that his conduct was unlawful.”

“It has long been clearly established that, absent any other justification for the use of force, it is unreasonable for a police officer to use deadly force against a fleeing felon who does not pose a sufficient threat of harm to the officer or others.” This applies not only to a felon fleeing on foot, but also to one fleeing in a motor vehicle. We note that the Supreme Court and this court decline to apply Garner with a high-level of generality. While “ protect ‘all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.’” Here, precedent provided Roper with fair notice that using deadly force on an unarmed, albeit non-compliant, driver held in a chokehold in a parked car was a constitutional violation beyond debate.

At the time of Roper’s use of deadly force, “the law was clearly established that although the right to make an arrest ‘necessarily carries with it the right to use some degree of physical coercion or threat thereof to effect it,’” the constitutionally “permissible degree of force depends on the severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect posed a threat to the officer’s safety, and whether the suspect was resisting arrest or attempting to flee.” In Garner, the Supreme Court made clear that “where the suspect poses no immediate threat to the officer and no threat to others, the harm resulting from failing to apprehend him does not justify the use of deadly force to do so.”

Here, under Crane’s account, Crane was shot while he was held in a chokehold in a parked car while evading arrest for several confirmed misdemeanors and an unconfirmed felony parole violation. Roper was on notice that the use of deadly force is objectively reasonable only where an officer has “a reasonable belief that he or the public was in imminent danger…. of death or serious bodily harm.” Again, Roper’s alleged belief that Crane had a gun was not reasonable, nor was his belief that a parked car posed a danger to himself, the passengers, or the other officers standing on the side of the car. When we accept the facts as we must, this case is an obvious one. “While the Fourth Amendment’s reasonableness test is ’not capable of precise definition or mechanical application,” the test is clear enough that Roper should have known he could not use deadly force on an unarmed man in a parked car.

Because the facts seen in the light most favorable to Crane indicate a violation of a clearly established right and material facts are in dispute, the district court erred in granting summary judgment to Roper and perforce dismissing the City.

V.

We turn to the claims of the three passengers—Jefferson, Valencia Johnson, and Z.C.—against Roper and the City, suing under § 1983 and claiming that Roper’s actions violated their Fourth Amendment rights. The passengers argue that they are entitled to damages under two theories of liability.

First, they claim that they suffered emotional trauma by witnessing the excessive use of force against Crane. But witnessing the use of force is not enough. “Section 1983 imposes liability for violations of rights protected by the Constitution, not for violations of duties of care arising out of tort law.” “Negligent infliction of emotional distress is a state common law tort; there is no constitutional right to be free from witnessing police action.” Thus, bystanders may recover when they are subject to an officer’s excessive use of force such that their own Fourth Amendment right is violated; however, bystanders cannot recover when they only witness excessive force used upon another.

Second, the passengers claim that Roper used excessive force when he pointed his gun at them while entering the car, leading to psychological injuries. The district court dismissed the passengers’ claims for failing to “establish that they were the objects of Roper’s actions or that Roper’s actions physically injured them.”

There is no express requirement for a physical injury in an excessive force claim, but even if the passengers stated a plausible claim for psychological injuries, Roper is entitled to qualified immunity. “Fourth Amendment jurisprudence has long recognized that the right to make an arrest or investigatory stop necessarily carries with it the right to use some degree of physical coercion or threat thereof to effect it.” We previously held that pointing a gun can be reasonable given the circumstances, and that “the momentary fear experienced by the plaintiff when a police officer pointed a gun at him did not rise to the level of a constitutional violation.” Here, there was no unreasonable use of force against the passengers, so no constitutional injury occurred.

As we affirm the dismissal of the passengers’ claims against Roper for a failure to state a claim in the absence of a constitutional injury, we also affirm the dismissal of their claims against the City.

****

We AFFIRM the dismissal of the passengers’ claims and VACATE the grant of summary judgment on Crane’s claims and REMAND to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Stout v. Vincent, 717 Fed. Appx. 468 (5th Cir. 2018)

Per Curiam

We decide whether the district court erred when granting summary judgment in favor of a police officer on the racial profiling claims of a black couple. The district court found that the couple failed to raise any genuine issue of material fact showing that the officer violated their equal protection rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. We affirm.

Facts and Proceedings

Cathryn Scott Stout and Raymond Montgomery, Jr., who are black, were travelling together from Memphis, Tennessee in a Lexus sport utility vehicle (“SUV”) on Interstate 55 through central Mississippi. Montgomery noticed Mississippi Highway Safety Patrol (“MHSP”) cars parked on the median. Soon after they passed the cars, Trooper Patrick Wall drove up along the side of their SUV in the left lane and looked at them. He then dropped behind their vehicle and turned on his lights and siren. Montgomery, who was driving, pulled over, but he did not feel nervous because he was not speeding and he believed he had done nothing wrong.

Trooper Wall asked Montgomery to step out of the car to show him that the SUV’s license plate was partially obscured by a tag holder. The tag holder bore the logo and colors of the Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, Inc. (“AKA”), a black sorority to which Stout belonged. Trooper Wall explained to Montgomery that the MHSP was attempting to “crack down” on drivers with tag holders that obscured their plates. Trooper Wall said he would not issue a ticket for the obscured plate, but he asked for Montgomery’s license and permission to search the vehicle. Montgomery refused consent for the search.

Trooper Wall called Staff Sergeant Vincent for backup, informing him that Stout and Montgomery were “argumentative and difficult to deal with.” When Officer Vincent arrived, Trooper Wall told him that Montgomery exhibited unusual signs of nervousness and the SUV’s occupants had offered conflicting stories about where they were traveling, the purpose of their trip, and how long they intended to stay in Mississippi. Officer Vincent questioned the passengers himself. Stout informed Officer Vincent that she was in the state to perform research for her doctoral degree at Saint Louis University. But Officer Vincent had trouble remembering this fact once litigation had commenced. He remembered only that one of the passengers had explained that they were traveling to a concert.(n.1 in opinion) Officer Vincent remembered that the passengers gave him conflicting answers as to the purpose and length of their stay in Mississippi. Montgomery and Stout deny that they gave conflicting answers to these questions. Because of the procedural posture, we view all factual disputes in a light most favorable to Appellants.

Officer Vincent informed Stout and Montgomery that troopers can run the license of all individuals in a car to check their criminal histories and ensure that they are not wanted for arrest. He further explained that the Mississippi Department of Public Safety uses minor infractions as a pretext to stop for criminal investigations. He said, “The more people we contact, the more people we check out, the more likely we are to catch somebody up to no good.”

Trooper Wall ran a check on Montgomery’s Tennessee driver’s license. The computer showed that he had prior arrests for both possession of narcotics and intent to distribute narcotics. Officer Vincent’s training and many years of experience in drug interdiction made him aware that Interstate 55 is used often to transport drugs, particularly between Jackson, Mississippi and Memphis, Tennessee. Officer Vincent requested permission to search the vehicle, but was denied.

Officer Vincent called for a K-9 officer, and Deputy Joseph Mangino soon arrived with his dog. Officer Vincent instructed Montgomery and Stout to turn off their car, get out of the vehicle, and stand away from each other and the car while the dog sniffed around the SUV.(n.2 in opinion) Officer Vincent told Montgomery and Stout that the dog would sit and freeze if it detected drugs. They never saw the dog sit and freeze. Stout began recording the beginning of the inspection on her phone’s camera. Vincent ordered her to put the camera away, and she complied. The limited footage she obtained does not show the dog barking or making any other signals to the troopers.

When the dog picked up a “suspicious” scent from inside the vehicle, the officers searched the SUV.(n.3 in opinion) The parties’ accounts of the search differ. Stout and Montgomery insist that no drugs were found in the vehicle. Officer Vincent claims he found marijuana residue on the floorboard of the vehicle and a piece large enough to be easily identified as marijuana. Because the quantity of the marijuana was small, the officers did not issue a citation. We reiterate that we view all factual disputes in a light most favorable to Appellants

The inspection was thorough, and more than an hour passed from the initiation of the stop until the officers finally allowed Appellants to leave without issuing a citation.

Stout and Montgomery sued Officer Vincent, seeking injunctive relief and damages for violation of their Fourteenth Amendment rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Specifically, they alleged that impermissible considerations of race motivated their extended detention by Officer Vincent. Officer Vincent moved for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity, and the district court granted his motion, concluding Appellants “have not presented any evidence” in support of their claim that Officer Vincent’s conduct “was at least partially based on their race.” Stout and Montgomery appealed.

Discussion

On appeal, Stout and Montgomery raise only one issue: whether the district court erred when concluding there was no genuine issue of material fact that Officer Vincent’s actions were impermissibly motivated by race.

I. Legal Standard

A. Summary Judgment

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, a “court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a). The Supreme Court has explained that “a party seeking summary judgment always bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of the record which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett. But the moving party has no need to negate its opponents’ claims.

If the moving party meets its burden, “the nonmovant must go beyond the pleadings and designate specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” The nonmovant’s “burden is not satisfied with some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts, by conclusory allegations, by unsubstantiated assertions, or by only a scintilla of evidence.”

A court must view all evidence “in the light most favorable to the opposing party.” In Tolan v. Cotton, the Supreme Court stressed “the importance of drawing inferences in favor of the nonmovant” in qualified immunity cases.If a district court credits evidence of the party seeking summary judgment but fails to properly acknowledge key evidence offered by the nonmoving party, it misapprehends the summary judgment standard.

C. Fourteenth Amendment Racial Profiling

“The Constitution prohibits selective enforcement of the law based on considerations such as race.” “The constitutional basis for objecting to intentionally discriminatory application of laws is the Equal Protection Clause.”

Claims of racially selective law enforcement “draw on ordinary equal protection standards.” “To state a claim of racial discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause and section 1983, the plaintiff must allege and prove that she received treatment different from that received by similarly situated individuals and that the unequal treatment stemmed from a discriminatory intent.”

In another context, we have said that a plaintiff’s “subjective belief of discrimination, however genuine, cannot be the basis of judicial relief.” Thus, a plaintiff’s “subjective belief that he was discriminated against, standing alone, is not adequate evidence to survive a motion for summary judgment.”

Finally, “discriminatory intent of one official may not be imputed to another for purposes of imposing individual liability under the civil rights laws.”

II. Lack of Evidence of Fourteenth Amendment Violation

The district court concluded that Montgomery and Stout “have not presented any evidence to support their claim” that Officer Vincent’s decision to detain them was “at least partially based on their race.” The district court further concluded that Montgomery and Stout “have likewise not shown that their race played any role whatsoever in Vincent’s formulation of a reasonable Montgomery have failed to produce any material evidence showing that race motivated Officer Vincent’s conduct, we need not address the issue. suspicion or wrongdoing, or in the actions that were taken by him to dispel that suspicion.”

On appeal, Montgomery and Stout detail the evidence they claim demonstrates Officer Vincent’s discriminatory intent and unequal treatment:

• They were traveling from Memphis, Tennessee to Jackson, Mississippi, which are both predominantly black cities.

• They are both black.

• They were driving a Lexus SUV.

• Stout believed “they were being held because they are African American and for no other reason.”

• Montgomery also believed “it appeared that the only reason Officer Vincent was keeping them was that they were black and driving a Lexus.”

• Officer Vincent later remembered that Stout and Montgomery had indicated that the purpose of their trip to Mississippi was a concert when in fact they had told him they were in Mississippi for Stout’s graduate student research. According to Stout and Montgomery, this lapse is evidence that Officer Vincent had discriminatory intent because “he did not see a highly educated Black woman and her partner; he saw two Black people in a nice car going to a concert.”

• No trooper issued them a ticket or citation, even though the officers claim they found marijuana in the SUV.

• They both stated there was no marijuana in the car that day.

• On the day before Officer Vincent detained Appellants, the City of Mound Bayou approved a resolution against the racial profiling of people of color by the MHSP. The mayor of Winstonville also condemned racial profiling of black people by the MHSP. Officer Vincent has been with the MHSP since 1997.

In light of this evidence, Montgomery and Stout argue that the district court misapplied the summary judgment standard when it concluded that they failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact. They stress that, after the Supreme Court’s decision in Tolan, this evidence must be viewed as a whole, and not in individual pieces. And the evidence must be viewed in a light most favorable to them.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Tolan, however, does not relieve a nonmoving party of its burden to “go beyond the pleadings and designate specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial” after a moving party meets its “initial responsibility.” Nor does it allow nonmovants to satisfy their burden with metaphysical doubt, conclusory allegations, unsubstantiated assertions, or a scintilla of evidence.

We have no reason to doubt the genuineness of Montgomery and Stout’s subjective belief that Officer Vincent detained them only because they are black. But we cannot accept such evidence as a basis for providing judicial relief. Because we are not permitted to impute any alleged discriminatory intent of Trooper Wall to Officer Vincent for the purpose of imposing individual liability under § 1983, we cannot consider any evidence of racial profiling that occurred before Officer Vincent arrived on the scene. Moreover, we cannot attribute the general evidence of racial profiling by the MHSP condemned by the mayor of Winstonville and the City of Mound Bayou to Officer Vincent.

With this evidence removed, all that remains of Appellants’ case is that they, a black couple, were detained when driving a nice car on a Mississippi road by an officer who did not write them a ticket and who could not remember their purpose for visiting the state. Even when viewed as a whole, this evidence fails to show that there is a genuine issue for trial regarding whether Officer Vincent treated them unequally and acted with discriminatory intent.

Although Appellants dispute Trooper Wall’s report that they were acting nervous and that they gave conflicting accounts as to the purpose of their trip in Mississippi, this does not create a fact issue because Officer Vincent was allowed to rely on the information provided to him by a fellow officer. In light of the report he received from Trooper Wall, the fact that Montgomery had previously been arrested for distributing narcotics, and the fact that Interstate 55 is often used to transport drugs, Officer Vincent had nondiscriminatory reasons to continue detaining Appellants after the initial stop and request assistance from the K-9 officer.

Because Appellants failed to provide any evidence that Officer Vincent acted with discriminatory intent or treated them unequally, they cannot show there are any genuine issues of fact warranting a trial on their Fourteenth Amendment claim of racial profiling. Accordingly, we conclude the district court did not err when it granted summary judgment in favor of Officer Vincent.