FILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT April 28, 2021
_________________________________
Christopher M. Wolpert
Clerk of Court
ROXANNE TORRES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v. No. 18-2134
(D.C. No. 1:16-CV-01163-LF-KK)
JANICE MADRID; RICHARD (D. N.M.)
WILLIAMSON,
Defendants - Appellees.
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
_________________________________
Before MORITZ, BRISCOE, and CARSON, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
This 42 U.S.C. § 1983 excessive-force case is here on remand from the United
States Supreme Court. In its ruling, the Court addressed the pivotal issue presented in
this case: Is there a Fourth Amendment seizure when the force used by police to seize a
person fails to terminate that person’s flight?
Here, Officers Janice Madrid and Richard Williamson discharged their firearms
into Roxanne Torres’s vehicle as she hastily drove away from an apartment complex
where police were executing an arrest warrant. Although two bullets struck her, she
managed to drive away and was not arrested until the next day. She later sued the
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines
of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for
its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
officers, claiming they had used excessive force and conspired with one another in doing
so.
The district court determined the officers were entitled to summary judgment on
the basis of qualified immunity, ruling: “Because the officers did not stop Ms. Torres by
shooting at her, there was no seizure, and she cannot prevail on her claims of excessive
force. Because there was no seizure, there was no violation of [her] Fourth Amendment
rights.” Aplt. App. at 269. This court affirmed, finding the matter governed by Brooks v.
Gaenzle, 614 F.3d 1213 (10th Cir. 2010). See Torres v. Madrid, 769 F. App’x 654, 657
(10th Cir. 2019). In Brooks, this court held that no Fourth Amendment “seizure can
occur unless there is physical touch or a show of authority,” and that “such physical touch
(or force) must terminate the suspect’s movement.” 614 F.3d at 1223 (emphasis added).
Relying on Brooks, this court concluded that because Torres had evaded custody after the
officers’ application of force, there was no seizure and her “excessive-force claims (and
the derivative conspiracy claims) fail[ed] as a matter of law.” Torres, 769 F. App’x
at 657.
The Supreme Court granted certiorari and held that “[t]he application of physical
force to the body of a person with intent to restrain is a seizure, even if the force does not
succeed in subduing the person.” Torres v. Madrid, 141 S. Ct. 989, 993 (2021). Thus,
the Supreme Court overruled Brooks. See id. at 994. It then concluded “that the officers
seized Torres by shooting her with intent to restrain her movement.” Id. at 1003. As a
result, the Court vacated our decision in Torres’s case and remanded the matter to this
2
court, “leav[ing] open . . . any questions regarding the reasonableness of the seizure, the
damages caused by the seizure, and the officers’ entitlement to qualified immunity.” Id.
Because these questions are best answered in the first instance by the district court,
we remand for further proceedings.
Entered for the Court
Mary Beck Briscoe
Circuit Judge
3