Case Explained: Branden Sanchez Plaintiff— v. Jonathan Bates Nunemaker Defendant—

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Filed: 2026-06-23 The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of a deputy sheriff’s motion to dismiss a § 1983 excessive force claim, holding that the plaintiff sufficiently pleaded facts to overcome the officer’s qualified immunity defense. The court applied the *Graham v. Connor* objective reasonableness standard, analyzing whether the use of force was reasonable under the totality of the circumstances, including the severity of the crime, the suspect’s threat level, and active resistance. Viewing the complaint and incorporated video in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the court found it plausible that discharging high-velocity pepper spray directly into a handcuffed, seat-belted suspect’s eye from half the manufacturer’s minimum safe distance constituted unreasonable force, as the suspect posed no immediate threat to safety or others despite being disruptive. Regarding clearly established law, the court determined that *Ramirez v. Martinez* provided sufficient notice that using significant force against a restrained, outnumbered suspect who is not fleeing or posing an immediate threat is unlawful, distinguishing the officer’s reliance on *Brothers v. Zoss* and *Baldwin v. Stalder* due to the significantly lower threat level in this case. Consequently, the defendant remains subject to litigation on the merits of the Fourth Amendment claim, and the case proceeds toward trial or further proceedings rather than being dismissed at the pleading stage. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.