Raley v. Fraser

What This Case Is About

Raley v. Fraser is an older Fifth Circuit case that illustrates the former (and now-overruled) requirement that a plaintiff must suffer “sufficiently severe injuries” to state a § 1983 excessive force claim. While the severity requirement has since been abandoned, this case remains instructive on the relationship between state tort claims and federal civil rights claims, and on the attorneys’ fees implications of prevailing on one but not the other.

The Facts

At one o’clock in the morning in Amarillo, Texas, Officers Thomas Fraser and Gary Trupe observed Robert Raley and his friend Ken Painter knock over a small sign after leaving their car outside an all-night restaurant. The officers stopped to investigate. The encounter between Officer Fraser and Raley escalated until Raley was arrested for public intoxication.

During the process, Officer Fraser applied choke holds on Raley four times. Raley’s arms were bruised, his face was scraped, and the handcuffs raised welts on his wrists. He visited a doctor twice during the following week and suffered a sore throat and hoarse voice for several weeks. There was no permanent injury.

Raley sued under § 1983 for excessive force and unlawful arrest, and brought state law claims for assault and battery, false arrest, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, malicious prosecution, negligence, and gross negligence.

What the Court Decided

After a bench trial, the district court found for Raley only on his state assault and battery claim, awarding $1,000 in actual damages against Fraser alone. The court rejected the § 1983 claims and denied attorneys’ fees.

§ 1983 excessive force claim — denied: Under the then-prevailing Shillingford standard, the court held that Raley’s injuries — bruises, scrapes, welts, and a sore throat — were not “sufficiently severe” to constitute a § 1983 violation. The court also found the officers acted without malice. The Fifth Circuit affirmed, finding the record supported the district court’s findings.

State assault and battery — $1,000 awarded: The district court found that Raley’s “minimal resistance did not justify Officer Fraser’s draconian measures” — four choke holds during an arrest for public intoxication. This was enough for state tort liability but not federal constitutional liability.

Unlawful arrest claim — denied: The officers had probable cause to arrest Raley for public intoxication and acted in good faith.

Attorneys’ fees denied: Because Raley did not prevail on his § 1983 claims, the court denied fees under § 1988, even though he prevailed on the state claim.

Why This Case Matters for Your § 1983 Case

• The severity requirement is gone: After Graham v. Connor (1989) and Hudson v. McMillian (1992), the Supreme Court abandoned the requirement that injuries be “severe” for an excessive force claim. Today, four choke holds during a public intoxication arrest would likely support a § 1983 claim — not just a state tort claim.
• State tort claims provide a backup: Even if your federal claim fails, your state law assault and battery claim may succeed under a lower threshold. Always plead both federal and state claims.
• Attorneys’ fees require prevailing on § 1983: Under § 1988, you can recover fees only if you prevail on a federal civil rights claim. Winning a state tort claim alone won’t get you fees.
• “Draconian measures” language is useful: The court’s finding that “minimal resistance did not justify Officer Fraser’s draconian measures” — while insufficient for § 1983 at the time — would likely support a federal claim today. This proportionality language aligns with modern Graham factors analysis.
• Choke holds are increasingly scrutinized: Multiple applications of choke holds are now widely recognized as dangerous and potentially deadly force, making claims based on their use more viable today than in 1984.

Key Takeaway

While Raley v. Fraser denied the § 1983 claim under an outdated severity requirement, the case’s facts — four choke holds during a public intoxication arrest causing only minor injuries — would likely succeed under today’s standards. The case illustrates why you should always plead parallel state tort claims and why the evolution of excessive force law since Graham v. Connor has dramatically expanded plaintiffs’ ability to recover for police violence.