The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently upheld a ruling that El Paso Police Officer Steven Jaso did not use excessive force when he deployed a taser against a 70-year-old man, Armando Navejas, who later died. The court's decision, issued on October 8, 2026, affects the family of Navejas and raises important questions about police conduct and the use of force, particularly against individuals with mental health issues.
Debbie Navejas, the daughter of Armando Navejas, filed a lawsuit against Officer Jaso and the City of El Paso under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming excessive force and municipal liability. The case, identified as docket number 25-51061, stemmed from an incident that occurred on October 24, 2021, when police responded to a domestic violence call involving Armando, who suffered from dementia and Alzheimer's disease.
According to court documents, Armando's wife reported that he had become violent and attempted to strangle her. When Officer Jaso arrived, he found Armando outside, who allegedly ignored commands and threw objects at the officer. Jaso deployed his taser once, leading to Armando falling and subsequently being hospitalized, where he later died.
The family argued that Jaso's use of the taser constituted excessive force, especially considering Armando's age and mental health conditions. However, the district court ruled in favor of Jaso and the City of El Paso, granting summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity, which protects officers from liability unless they violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.
The court found that even if Jaso's actions could be seen as a Fourth Amendment violation, there was no precedent clearly forbidding the use of a taser in this specific situation. The court stated, "Even resolving any genuine factual disputes in the plaintiff’s favor, no precedent clearly forbade Jaso from deploying his taser once against the erratic, actively resisting suspect he confronted." This ruling was based on the understanding that Armando was not compliant and posed a potential threat at the time of the incident.
The court also affirmed the district court's conclusion that the City of El Paso was not liable under the Monell standard, which requires proof of municipal liability through a pattern of constitutional violations or deliberate indifference. The court noted that Navejas did not present sufficient evidence to show that the City had a policy or custom that led to the alleged constitutional violation.
This ruling has significant implications for how courts interpret excessive force claims, particularly in cases involving individuals with mental health issues. The Fifth Circuit's decision emphasizes the importance of context in evaluating police conduct and the need for clear legal standards to guide officers in the field.
Moving forward, this ruling could affect similar cases where police officers use force against individuals who may be experiencing mental health crises. It highlights the ongoing debate about the appropriate use of force by law enforcement and the need for training and policies that address the complexities of such encounters.
As for the possibility of an appeal, Navejas could seek to challenge the ruling in a higher court, although the chances of success may be limited given the court's strong affirmation of the lower court's decision. Additionally, there are no related cases currently pending that could influence this ruling.
In summary, the Fifth Circuit's decision in Navejas v. City of El Paso reinforces the legal protections afforded to police officers under qualified immunity and sets a precedent for future excessive force cases involving vulnerable individuals.