In a recent Fifth Circuit case, Langiano v. City of Fort Worth, Texas, the Court considered whether an officer used excessive force when he shot a suspect who was undisputedly holding a gun when the officer entered a motel room the suspect occupied. The Court found the officer was entitled to qualified immunity because he reasonably perceived a threat of harm, and thus no constitutional violation occurred.

Qualified immunity shields public officials from undue interference with their duties, and from the attendant costs of litigation and potential liability, provided their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.

Langiano v. City of Fort Worth, Texas – Background

Plaintiff Tracy Langiano was accused of sexually abusing his step-granddaughters and left his home after writing a suicide note. He checked into a motel with a loaded handgun, with the intention of killing himself. Langiano’s son informed the police about the suicide note and the handgun. Police located Langiano at the motel, and Officer Rollins, without knocking, entered the room. Rollins claimed Langiano pointed a gun at him, prompting Rollins to shoot Langiano six times. Langiano disputed pointing the gun at Rollins, but admitted to holding it.

Langiano brought a claim for violation of his Fourth Amendment rights against use of excessive force, alleging that Defendant Officer Landon Rollins shot and injured him. Langiano further alleged that the constitutional violation resulted from the City of Fort Worth’s policies.

The District Court denied a motion by Langiano to stay his civil suit while the underlying state criminal charges were pending against him. Following the close of discovery, Rollins and the City moved for summary judgment. The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of both Officer Rollins and the City of Fort Worth. Langiano appealed.

Holdings and Analysis

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the District Court in all respects.

First, the Court found no abuse of discretion regarding the District Court’s decision to deny the stay, as Langiano failed to demonstrate substantial and irreparable prejudice. Moreover, the prejudice to Rollins and the City was evident because the case had been pending for over a year and discovery was already complete; the case was ripe for resolution. Further, delaying that resolution for an indeterminate amount of time would adversely affect not only the defendants’ rights, but also the public’s interest in having the lawsuit resolved in a timely manner.

Second, the Court affirmed the District Court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Officer Rollins on the basis of qualified immunity. The Court explained that the evidence clearly indicated that, at a minimum, Langiano was holding a gun when Officer Rollins entered the motel room, based on:

1. Rollins’ testimony.
2. an audio recording.
3. Langiano’s admission in an interview conducted the day after the shooting.
4. Langiano’s own shooting reconstruction expert, who did not preclude Langiano pointing a gun at Officer Rollins.

Therefore, the Court found that Officer Rollins reasonably perceived a threat of harm, and his use of force was reasonable given the circumstances. Because the officer’s use of force was reasonable, there was no violation of Langiano’s Fourth Amendment rights, and Rollins was entitled to qualified immunity. The Court also held that the warrantless entry into the motel room was justified due to the exigent circumstances of Langiano being armed and suicidal.

Third, the Court affirmed summary judgment in favor of the City of Forth Worth as to Langiano’s Monell claim, as there was no constitutional violation. Thus the City’s actions or inactions could not have led to any violation.

Well-settled legal principles

The Fifth Circuit’s holding applies several well-settled legal principles in the qualified immunity context.

First, officers are justified in using deadly force when such force is objectively reasonable in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them, without regard to their underlying intent or motivation.

Second, the calculus of reasonableness must contemplate that officers are often forced to make split-second judgments in tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving circumstances.

Third, a police officer need not allow an individual to shoot, or even to aim their weapon, before applying deadly force to ensure the officer’s safety.

TakeawayS

In an excessive force case involving an assertion of the qualified immunity defense at the summary judgment stage, parties must be cognizant of the need to submit competent factual evidence that bears on these issues, as applied to their respective standard. The plaintiff can no longer rest on the pleadings and must submit evidence to show that the defense is not available. The defendant should likewise come forward with evidence showing that there is no genuine dispute that the officer’s actions were objectively reasonable, based on the circumstances.

In future excessive force cases, parties should be aware of the Fifth Circuit’s holding here: Rollins reasonably perceived a threat based on the undisputed facts indicating that Langiano was holding a gun when Rollins entered the motel room.

No. 22-10974, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 5638,  __ F.4th __, 2025 WL 760295 (5th Cir. Mar. 11, 2025)