Westfall v. Luna

What This Case Is About

Constance Westfall called the Southlake Police Department when her grandson’s father, Monte, came to her home to take the child. When officers arrived and attempted to enter the home to check on the child’s welfare, Westfall reached for her front door. Officer Jose Luna then body-slammed her to the ground, and other officers helped hold her down. Westfall suffered a spinal injury and sued five officers and the City of Southlake under § 1983, raising claims for false arrest, excessive force, First Amendment retaliation, denial of medical treatment, and failure to train. The Fifth Circuit issued a mixed ruling, reversing on false arrest but affirming qualified immunity on the remaining claims.

The Facts

Westfall’s daughter-in-law and grandson lived with Westfall. Monte, the grandson’s father, came to the home to take the child. Westfall called the police. Officers Anderson, Luna, and Trevino responded. When they arrived, Westfall told the officers that Monte was inside the house with the child.

The officers told Westfall to stay outside while they entered the home. As the officers were about to enter, Westfall reached for the doorknob of her front door. According to the officers, Westfall approached Officer Anderson in a threatening manner. According to Westfall, she simply reached for her own door. Before she could explain herself, Officer Luna grabbed her and body-slammed her to the ground. Officer Trevino then helped hold Westfall on the ground while she was handcuffed.

Westfall sustained a spinal injury from the body slam, along with abrasions, bruises, bloody urine, and elevated blood pressure and heart rate. She complained of pain and asked for medical treatment. Officers called paramedics, who arrived less than 45 minutes after Luna brought Westfall to the ground.

Westfall also alleged that Luna’s use of force was motivated by her speech—she had been vocal and argumentative with the officers. Luna had told her, “Ma’am, could you be quiet please? Or I am going to ask you to go back inside,” and “Then I am going to ask you to stop talking.”

What the Court Decided

The Fifth Circuit issued a complex, mixed ruling:

False arrest – REVERSED. The court found genuine fact issues about whether the officers had probable cause to arrest Westfall. Under Westfall’s version of events, she merely reached for her own front door at her own home—conduct that may not constitute a criminal offense. Because fact issues existed, the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity on the false arrest claim, and the case was remanded for trial.

Excessive force against Luna – REVERSED. The court found that Luna’s body slam, which caused a spinal injury, raised a genuine fact issue about excessive force. A spinal injury is not a de minimis injury, and under Westfall’s account, she was not physically threatening anyone when Luna slammed her to the ground.

Excessive force against Trevino – AFFIRMED. The court affirmed qualified immunity for Trevino, who only assisted in holding Westfall on the ground after Luna’s body slam. Westfall’s injuries potentially caused by Trevino’s actions—abrasions, bruises, bloody urine—were de minimis under Fifth Circuit precedent. Without an allegation of greater than de minimis injury caused by Trevino, qualified immunity applied.

First Amendment retaliation – AFFIRMED. The court found that Luna’s force was not substantially motivated by Westfall’s speech. Under either party’s account, Luna acted immediately after Westfall reached for the doorknob, not after her verbal comments. The identified speech-related comments were made before the physical altercation, and the force was prompted by Westfall’s physical action (reaching for the door), not her words.

Denial of medical treatment – AFFIRMED. The court applied the deliberate indifference standard and found that a delay of less than 45 minutes in calling paramedics did not constitute deliberate indifference, especially where the only lasting injury (the spinal injury) was not worsened by the delay.

Failure to train (City) – AFFIRMED. The court affirmed dismissal of the failure-to-train claim against the City, applying Zarnow v. City of Wichita Falls and finding that Westfall failed to show a pattern of similar violations or that this case fit the narrow single-incident exception.

Why This Case Matters for Your § 1983 Case

De minimis injury bars excessive force claims against assisting officers. In the Fifth Circuit, abrasions, back and neck pain, and bruises are typically considered de minimis injuries. If your injuries from a particular officer’s actions are minor, your excessive force claim against that officer may fail even if another officer’s actions caused more serious harm.

Reaching for your own door can create a fact issue on probable cause. The court recognized that a homeowner’s act of reaching for her own front door may not constitute criminal conduct. This fact issue was enough to defeat qualified immunity on false arrest.

Retaliation requires speech as the substantial motivating factor. For a First Amendment retaliation claim, you must show that your speech—not your physical conduct—was the substantial motivation for the officer’s adverse action. If the officer can point to a non-speech-based reason for acting (like reaching for a door), the retaliation claim weakens significantly.

Short medical delays generally don’t show deliberate indifference. A delay of 45 minutes or less in providing medical treatment is unlikely to establish deliberate indifference unless the delay caused additional serious injury.

Key Takeaway

Westfall v. Luna is a nuanced decision showing how multiple § 1983 claims arising from the same incident can have different outcomes. A body slam causing a spinal injury can survive qualified immunity on excessive force, but an assisting officer who only caused bruises may be protected. False arrest claims survive when fact issues exist about probable cause, but First Amendment retaliation claims fail when force is triggered by physical conduct rather than speech. Failure-to-train claims require patterns, and medical delay claims require deliberate indifference.