Renfroe v. Parker ( 2022 )

Case: 20-61101 Document: 00516238768 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/15/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
March 15, 2022
No. 20-61101
Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar
Clerk
Amanda Kay Renfroe, individually, as the widow of Michael
Wayne Renfroe, deceased, and as the natural mother and adult next
friend of S.W.R., her minor child, who are the sole heirs and wrongful death
beneficiaries of Michael Wayne Renfroe, deceased; the Estate
of Michael Wayne Renfroe; and Amanda Kay Renfroe, in
her official capacity as administratrix of the Estate of Michael
Wayne Renfroe,
Plaintiffs—Appellants,
versus
Robert Denver Parker; Randall Tucker,
Defendants—Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 3:18-CV-609
USDC No. 3:19-CV-396
Before Davis, Jones, and Elrod, Circuit Judges.
Case: 20-61101 Document: 00516238768 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/15/2022
No. 20-61101
Per Curiam:*
Amanda Kay Renfroe (Mrs. Renfroe) appeals the denial of her Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion to set aside judgment. She had filed a
42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights suit against Madison County Sheriff Deputy
Robert Parker and Madison County Sheriff Randall Tucker, in both their
individual and official capacities, based on an officer-related shooting that
resulted in the death of her husband, Michael Renfroe (Mr. Renfroe).
We review the denial of relief on a Rule 60 motion for abuse of
discretion. See Wilson v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 873 F.2d 869, 871 (5th
Cir. 1989). A district court abuses its discretion if its decision is based on a
legal error or a clearly erroneous finding of fact. Rodriguez v. Johnson, 104
F.3d 694, 696 (5th Cir. 1997).
First, Mrs. Renfroe argues that the district court abused its discretion
when it denied her Rule 60(b)(2) motion based on the newly discovered
evidence of an autopsy report and accompanying expert report by a forensic
pathologist. Relying on the pathologist’s opinion that there was no physical
altercation between Deputy Parker and Mr. Renfroe, Mrs. Renfroe disputes
Deputy Parker’s statement that her husband choked and hit the deputy. In
addition, Mrs. Renfroe contends that the newly obtained autopsy report
reflects bullet trajectories indicating that Deputy Parker did not shoot
Mr. Renfroe in self-defense.
Mrs. Renfroe has not shown that the new evidence “is material and
controlling and clearly would have produced a different result if present
before the original judgment.” Goldstein v. MCI WorldCom, 340 F.3d 238,
257 (5th Cir. 2003). Although she asserts that the information regarding the
bullet trajectories and the forensic pathologist’s opinion establish that the
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
2
Case: 20-61101 Document: 00516238768 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/15/2022
No. 20-61101
deputy did not shoot in self-defense, the testimony by Deputy Parker and the
accompanying dashboard camera recording reflect that Mr. Renfroe in fact
moved toward Deputy Parker in a threatening manner. Deputy Parker’s use
of deadly force, under these circumstances, did not violate the Fourth
Amendment because it was objectively reasonable for him to believe that
Mr. Renfroe posed a threat of serious harm. See Romero v. City of Grapevine,
888 F.3d 170, 176 (5th Cir. 2018); Manis v. Lawson, 585 F.3d 839, 843 (5th
Cir. 2009). Because Mrs. Renfroe has not demonstrated that the autopsy and
expert report clearly would have produced a different result, she has failed to
show that the district court abused its discretion in denying her Rule 60(b)(2)
motion. See Wilson, 873 F.2d at 871; Goldstein, 340 F.3d at 257.
Second, Mrs. Renfroe argues that the district court abused its
discretion when it denied her Rule 60(b)(3) motion based on fraudulent
statements by Deputy Parker in regard to his physical altercation with
Mr. Renfroe. She asserts that Deputy Parker’s misstatements prevented her
from fully and fairly presenting her case.
In this matter, Deputy Parker provided a sworn statement about his
physical altercation with Mr. Renfroe during the eight seconds in which they
are not visible on the dashboard camera and before he shot Mr. Renfroe.
Deputy Parker introduced the dashboard audio recording to corroborate that
testimony. There is no indication from the record that he or Sheriff Tucker
concealed any evidence from Mrs. Renfroe or provided fraudulent testimony
to contradict evidence that existed in this case. To the extent Mrs. Renfroe
argues that Deputy Parker’s statements contradicted the forensic
pathologist’s expert report, that report was merely his opinion formulated
after reviewing the autopsy report. She has not shown either that Deputy
Parker engaged in fraud or that any fraudulent conduct prevented her from
presenting her case fully and fairly to the court. See Longden v. Sunderman,
979 F.2d 1095, 1103 (5th Cir. 1992). Therefore, Mrs. Renfroe has failed to
3
Case: 20-61101 Document: 00516238768 Page: 4 Date Filed: 03/15/2022
No. 20-61101
show that the district court abused its discretion in denying her Rule 60(b)(3)
motion. See Wilson, 873 F.2d at 871.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
4