Summary
This Ninth Circuit opinion reverses a district court's grant of summary judgment based on qualified immunity for a police officer who shot a plaintiff holding a knife to his own neck. The panel found that existing precedent established the right to be free from such excessive force under materially similar circumstances, rendering the violation clearly established. The court also reversed the remand of state-law claims and dismissed the officer's cross-appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Officer Smith-Petersen was entitled to qualified immunity at the clearly-established-law step on Singh's § 1983 excessive-force claim.
- Whether the Ninth Circuit had appellate jurisdiction over Smith-Petersen's cross-appeal challenging the district court's determination that genuine factual disputes existed regarding the reasonableness of the deadly force.
- Whether the district court properly dismissed or remanded Singh's state-law claims after granting summary judgment on the federal claim.
Holdings
- Officer Smith-Petersen was not entitled to qualified immunity at the clearly-established-law step because Glenn v. Washington County placed her on notice that using deadly force against a suicidal person who held a knife to his own neck, did not threaten others, and presented disputed indications of an immediate threat could violate the Fourth Amendment.
- The court lacked appellate jurisdiction over Smith-Petersen's cross-appeal because it challenged the sufficiency and materiality of disputed facts rather than a purely legal qualified-immunity issue.
- The dismissal or remand of the state-law claims was reversed, and the case was remanded for reconsideration of whether the district court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims.
Key quotations
“Because we hold that Glenn put Smith-Petersen on notice that her use of deadly force plausibly violated Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment right to be free of excessive force, we need not and do not reach Plaintiff’s alternative argument” (at 20)
“Therefore, we “must accept the district court’s determinations that there are genuine disputes of fact and that a jury could find” that the facts favor Plaintiff.” (at 22)
Factual background
Phoenix police officers responded to a report of an attempted robbery involving a knife. When they arrived, Singh was holding a small knife to his own neck, repeatedly expressing a desire to be shot, and did not threaten anyone or attempt to flee, although he did not comply with commands to drop the knife. As Singh slowly moved toward Officer Smith-Petersen, she fired one round, seriously injuring him; the record contained disputed evidence concerning whether he posed an immediate threat and whether less-lethal options were feasible.
Procedural history
Singh sued the City of Phoenix and police officers in Arizona state court, asserting a Fourth Amendment excessive-force claim under § 1983 and state-law claims. Defendants removed the action to federal court and moved for summary judgment. The district court granted summary judgment to Officer Smith-Petersen on the § 1983 claim based on qualified immunity and remanded the state-law claims to state court. Singh appealed the qualified-immunity ruling, and Smith-Petersen cross-appealed the district court's determination that factual disputes precluded judgment that the force was reasonable as a matter of law.
Remand instructions
For appeal No. 23-15356, proceed with the § 1983 claim and reconsider whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims. Appeal No. 23-15444 is dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction.