Batyukova v. Doege

What This Case Is About

Inessa Batyukova was stopped in the left lane of a highway late at night when off-duty Deputy Brandon Doege pulled up behind her and activated his red and blue lights. When Batyukova exited her vehicle and refused to comply with Doege’s commands—instead giving him the middle finger, shouting profanities, and making movements that Doege perceived as reaching for a weapon—Doege shot her. Batyukova sued under § 1983, alleging excessive force and failure to render medical aid. The Fifth Circuit affirmed qualified immunity for Doege.

The Facts

Shortly before midnight on June 28, 2018, Deputy Brandon Doege of the Bexar County Sheriff’s Office was driving home from a shift in his personal vehicle, which was equipped with red and blue police-style lights. He was in uniform. After crossing from Bexar County into Medina County on U.S. Highway 90, Doege encountered Batyukova’s vehicle stopped in the left-hand lane with its hazard lights on.

Doege activated his lights, parked behind her, and called 911 to inform the Medina County dispatcher that he was an off-duty deputy who had encountered a stopped vehicle in the road. He had not yet approached the vehicle.

Batyukova began to exit her car. Doege yelled commands from his vehicle: “Let me see your hands,” “Get out of the vehicle,” and “Put your hands on the hood.” Instead of complying, Batyukova gave Doege the middle finger, shouted “f*** you,” and said she hated America. Doege asked the dispatcher to send a police unit.

The parties disputed critical facts: Doege testified that Batyukova also said “death to America” and “you’re going to f***ing die tonight,” and that she made movements consistent with reaching for a weapon. Batyukova denied making death threats and denied reaching for anything. A nearby security camera captured poor-quality video that revealed little about the disputed events.

Doege fired, striking Batyukova. She alleged that after shooting her, Doege failed to provide timely medical assistance.

What the Court Decided

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment and qualified immunity on both claims.

On excessive force, the court applied Graham v. Connor and Tennessee v. Garner. The critical question was whether Doege reasonably perceived Batyukova as a threat at the moment he fired. The court noted:

• Doege was alone on a dark highway late at night
• Batyukova refused to comply with repeated commands
• According to Doege (whose account was supported by the 911 recording), Batyukova made verbal death threats
• Doege perceived her as reaching for a weapon

The court held that even viewing disputed facts in Batyukova’s favor on some points, the undisputed circumstances—a noncompliant individual on a dark highway making aggressive statements—supported a finding that a reasonable officer could have perceived a threat. Qualified immunity applied because clearly established law did not forbid the use of force under these specific circumstances.

On failure to provide medical aid, the court found that Doege was also entitled to qualified immunity. He had called 911 before the encounter and emergency medical services responded. The law did not clearly establish that an off-duty officer in this situation was required to do more.

Why This Case Matters for Your § 1983 Case

Off-duty officers can act under color of law. Doege was off duty and driving his personal vehicle, but he was in uniform and had police lights. When an officer takes law enforcement action in these circumstances, they are acting under color of law and § 1983 applies—but so does qualified immunity.

Noncompliance escalates the threat assessment. Refusing to obey commands, making hostile statements, and making ambiguous physical movements can lead a reasonable officer to perceive a threat—even if the person is actually unarmed. Courts give significant weight to noncompliance in the Graham analysis.

Disputed facts don’t always defeat summary judgment. While disputed facts normally preclude summary judgment, the court here found that even taking some facts in Batyukova’s favor, the undisputed circumstances supported Doege’s threat perception. Some factual disputes are not material enough to change the outcome.

Deadly force in ambiguous situations. This case illustrates the difficulty of challenging deadly force when the encounter happens quickly, at night, with a noncompliant individual. Even if the plaintiff was unarmed, what the officer reasonably perceived matters more than what was actually true.

Key Takeaway

When an officer encounters a noncompliant individual in a dark, isolated setting who refuses commands and makes movements that could indicate reaching for a weapon, the officer may reasonably perceive a deadly threat—even if no weapon is ultimately found. Qualified immunity protects officers in these ambiguous, fast-evolving encounters where clearly established law does not dictate a single correct response.