United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT October 19, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-30249
Summary Calendar
ROBERT D MEAUX
Plaintiff - Appellant
v.
EVANS WILLIAMS, Police Officer of St Martin Parish Sheriff
Department, SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT ST MARTIN PARISH
Defendants - Appellees
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 02-CV-1855
--------------------
Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Robert D. Meaux filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
against Evans Williams and the St. Martin Parish Sheriff’s
Department. On the defendants’ summary judgment motion, the
district court dismissed Meaux’s unlawful arrest and excessive
force claims against Williams, as well as Meaux’s state law
battery claim. The district court also dismissed Meaux’s
constitutional claims against the Sheriff of St. Martin Parish,
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
No. 04-30249
-2-
as well as Meaux’s state law battery claim against the sheriff’s
department as Williams’s employer.
This court reviews a district court’s grant of summary
judgment de novo, applying the same standard as would the
district court. See Melton v. Teachers Ins. & Annuity Ass’n of
Am., 114 F.3d 557, 559 (5th Cir. 1997).
In order to establish the use of excessive force, the
plaintiff must show an injury, which resulted directly and solely
from the use of force that was clearly excessive to the need, and
the excessiveness of which was objectively unreasonable. See
Ikerd v. Blair, 101 F.3d 430, 433-34 (5th Cir. 1996). The
district court determined that Meaux’s excessive force claim
should be dismissed because Meaux had provided no evidence to
support his allegation that Williams had intentionally struck him
with his fist. The district court also determined that the
excessive force claim should be dismissed because Meaux had
failed to show that he suffered more than a de minimis injury.
Meaux relies on the allegations of his verified complaint to
establish the existence of a genuine issue of material fact on
his excessive force claim. A verified complaint may serve as
competent summary judgment evidence. See Hart v. Hairston, 343
F.3d 762, 765 (5th Cir. 2003). In his complaint, Meaux alleged
that when he answered the door, he was pulled out of his house by
Williams and then handcuffed. As Meaux lay across his Jacuzzi,
Meaux alleges, Williams smashed his fist into his face, breaking
No. 04-30249
-3-
three of Meaux’s teeth and opening a cut on his lip that required
stitches.
Given the allegations in Meaux’s verified complaint, and
viewing the inferences to be reasonably drawn from the underlying
facts in the record in the light most favorable to the Meaux, see
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio, 475 U.S. 574, 587
(1986), we are satisfied that Meaux has established that genuine
issues of material fact exist as to whether Williams used force
that was clearly excessive to the need and as to whether Meaux
suffered a cognizable injury as a result of such force. See
Ikerd, 101 F.3d at 433-34. Accordingly, we VACATE the district
court’s dismissal of Meaux’s excessive force and state law
battery claims against Williams. These claims are REMANDED to
the district court for further proceedings.
Meaux does not argue on appeal against the dismissal of his
unlawful arrest claim or the dismissal of his claims against the
sheriff. Meaux has abandoned these claims by failing to brief
them. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir.
1993). Accordingly, the district court’s dismissal of these
claims is AFFIRMED.
AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART.