Motley v. Stone, et al

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-10539
Summary Calendar
RUSSELL MOTLEY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
S. K. STONE, Fort Worth Police Officer
(Badege #2914); AMY FINLEY, (EMT) Student,
John Peter Smith Hospital,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
(4:98-CV-657-A)
--------------------
December 17, 2001
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Plaintiff-Appellant Russell Motley ("Motley"), Texas prisoner
# 828175, appeals the summary-judgment dismissal of his civil
rights complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Motley
alleges that his Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights
were violated when the defendant, a Fort Worth police officer, used
an "escort hold" on him during a medical procedure while Motley was
being treated in a hospital emergency room following his arrest for
driving while intoxicated.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
The district court did not err in determining that the
defendant was entitled to qualified immunity from Motley's claims.
To the extent that Motley attempted to assert a violation of his
Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches, his
claim fails because Motley did not refute Stone's evidence that he
was not engaged in a search of Motley at the time a urine specimen
was obtained at the hospital; indeed Motley has made no showing
that his blood or urine was analyzed for alcohol or that such
evidence was used in his prosecution. See Siegert v. Gilley, 500
U.S. 226, 231 (1991) (first inquiry in examining defense of
qualified immunity is whether the plaintiff has alleged a violation
of a clearly established constitutional right).
Motley's Eighth Amendment claim is properly analyzed as a
Fourth Amendment excessive-force claim. See Graham v. Connor, 490
U.S. 386, 395 (1989). That claim also fails, because the injury
sustained by Motley did not result directly and solely from Stone's
use of an "escort hold" during catheterization but rather was
caused by Motley himself when he removed the catheter. See Spann
v. Rainey, 987 F.2d 1110, 1115 (5th Cir. 1993). Further, in light
of the unrefuted evidence that Motley was combative with hospital
personnel, Stone's use of the escort hold to protect hospital
personnel was objectively reasonable. See id.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --