Barker v. Weatherford Police Department

── Barker v. Weatherford Police Department ── Case No.: 25-6069 Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Date: April 02, 2026 Category: General Appellate Case: 25-6069 Document: 33-1 Date Filed: 04/02/2026 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT April 2, 2026 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court DERRICK DUANE BARKER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. No. 25-6069 (D.C. No. 5:24-CV-00235-R) CITY OF WEATHERFORD EX REL. (W.D. Okla.) WEATHERFORD POLICE DEPARTMENT; RYAN HETHERINGTON; SEAN LANIER; NORMANDO GUYTON; DYLAN OWENS; DEREK BECK; CHASE MURLEY; JUSTIN BLATNICK; HAGAN ARD, in their individual capacities, Defendants - Appellees. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT * _________________________________ Before HARTZ, KELLY, and TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ Derrick Barker brought suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging officers of the City of Weatherford Police Department used excessive force while arresting him After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined * unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.  Appellate Case: 25-6069 Document: 33-1 Date Filed: 04/02/2026 Page: 2 following a traffic stop. Barker brought his civil rights claims against the City of Weatherford and the eight individual officers who took part in his arrest. The officers asserted qualified immunity and moved for summary judgment. The district court granted their motion, finding Barker failed to show the officers violated a constitutional right, and even if they had, the constitutional right the officers allegedly violated was not clearly established. This appeal followed. We AFFIRM because we agree with the district court on both prongs of the qualified immunity analysis. I. Background 1 On the evening of November 27th, 2021, Officer Hetherington observed Barker driving his vehicle in Weatherford, Oklahoma without his vehicle tag illuminated, and conducted a traffic stop. See Hetherington Dash at 00:39–00:44 1 Barker disputes the district court’s recitation of the facts. He argues the district court “relied on inaccurate facts” and “ignored material facts,” although he concedes “[t]he district court correctly identifies the facts of the incident up until Mr. Barker is tased.” Aplt. Br. at 10, 13–17. But because two separate dash cameras and three different officer body cameras captured the incident, we take “what is indisputably shown by the videos . . . as a matter of fact.” Kapinski v. City of Albuquerque, 964 F.3d 900, 903 n.2 (10th Cir. 2020) (citing Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 378 (2007)). And although under the summary judgment standard we view the facts in the light most favorable to Barker as the nonmoving party, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c), we will not adopt a version of the facts that is “blatant