N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
W ARR EN PR O STR OLLO, on be ha lf of him se lf a nd the sta tutory be ne fic ia rie s of Ja son Prostrollo a

nd a s the pe rsona l re pre se ntative of the Esta te of Ja son Prostrollo, Pla i ntiff-Appe lla nt,
v. C ITY OF SC OTTSDALE, a m unic ipa l ity orga niz e d unde r the la

ws of the Sta te of Ariz ona , a

nd R O NALD B A YNE, in his individua l a

nd offic ia l c a

p a c itie s a s a Lie ute na nt with the

C ity of Sc ottsda le Polic e De pa

rtm e nt, De fe nda n ts-Appe lle e s. No. 14-16921 D.C . No. 2:12-c v-01815-SM M
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Sta t e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na Ste phe n M
. M c Na m e e , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d and Subm i tte d Nove m

be r 15, 2016 Sa n Fran c isc o , C a lifornia 

# FIL ED JAN 24 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.Pa ge 2 of 3

B e fore : M ELLOY, ** C L IFTON, a nd WA TFORD, C i rc u it Judge s. The distric t c ourt prope rly grante d sum

m a ry judgm e nt in fa

vor of de fe nda n ts. Vie wing the fa c t s in the light m ost fa vora ble to pla intiff, no
re a s ona ble jury c ould c onc lude tha

t Lt. B ayne ’ s use of de a dly forc e wa s obje c tive ly

unre a sona

ble . It is undispute d tha

t the de c e de nt, Ja s on Prostrollo, ha d thre a te ne d two pe ople with a knife e arlie r in the e ve n i ng. It is a l so undispute d tha t whe n Prostrollo e m e rge d from the house , he wa s arm e d with a pote ntia lly

de a dly
we a pon (two ha lve s of a

pool c ue ), and tha

t he disre ga

rde d offic e rs’ wa

rnings to ha lt his a dva

n c e . Lt. B ayn e did not know whethe r Prostrollo still ha d the knife on his pe rson a s he c ontinue d to a dva nc e . Lt. B ayn e fire d only whe n Prostrollo ha d
a dva nc e d within 21 fe e t of the othe r offic e rs, the dista nc e offic e rs a

re ta ught c an be
c lose d by an atta c ke r be fore an offic e r c an re a c t to prote c t him se lf. The m a in dispute d

fa c t— whe re the polic e dog wa s whe n Lt. B ayne fire d— doe s not pre c l ude sum m ary judgm e nt. Eve n if the dog ha d be e n re le a se d
and wa s atte m

pting to subdue

Prostrollo a

t the tim e Lt. B ayne fire d, tha t would not
re nde r his use of forc e unre a sona ble . Offic e rs do not ne e d to a va il the m se l ve s of the l e a s t intrusivem e ans of re sponding to a thre a t; the Fourth Am e ndm e nt re quire s

* * The Honora

ble M ic ha e l J. M e lloy , Unite d State s C i rc uit Judge for the U.S. C ourt of Appe a l s for the Eighth C irc uit, sitting by de signa t ion.Pa ge 3 of 3

only tha t the i r c onduc t be re a s ona ble
. Se e Billington v. Smith , 292 F.3d 1177, 1188–89 (9th C ir. 2002). He re , Prostrollo wa s a rm e d with a

pote ntia lly

de a dly
we a pon a nd ha d re fuse d the offic e rs’ c o m m ands to ha lt his a

pproa c h. Lt. B ayne wa s not re quire d to wa it until Prostrollo wa s within striking dista nc e of the offic e rs give n the thre a t he pose d at the tim e Lt. B a y ne fire d. B e c a use Lt. B ayne ’ s use of forc e wa s obje c tive ly re a sona ble unde r the
c irc um s ta nc e s , pla intiff’ s c la im s unde r the Fourth a n d Fourte e nth Am e n dm e nts fa il. Se e W

ilk inson v . Torre

s , 610 F.3d 546, 553–54 (9th C ir. 2010). In the
a bse nc e of a c onstitutiona

l viola tion, pla intiff’ s c la im unde r Mone l l v . De partme nt of Soc ial Se rv ic e

s of N
. Y. , 436 U.S. 658 (1978), wa s prope rly dism i sse d
. Se e C ity of Los Ange le

s v . He lle r , 475 U.S. 796, 799 (1986) (pe r c uriam ). And pla i ntiff’ s sta te la w c la im s we re a lso prope rly dism isse d be c a

use Ariz o na ’ s justific ation sta tute s pe rm it the use of de a d l y forc e whe n

an offic e r re a sona

bly be lie ve s the suspe c t is like ly

to e nda nge r hum a

n life
. Se e Ariz
. R e v. Stat . §§ 13-410, 13-413; Marque z v . C ity of Phoe n ix , 693 F.3d 1167, 1176 (9th C i r. 2012). AFFIRM E D
.Prostrollo v. C ity of Sc ottsdale , No. 14-16921 W ATFORD , C irc uit Judge , disse nting: In m y vie w, this is not a c a se tha t c an be re s olve d at the sum m ary judgm e nt sta ge . A re a s ona

b le jury c ould c onc l ude tha

t the e v e n ts le a ding up to the fa ta l shooting of Ja son Prostrollo unfolde d a s follows: Prostrollo ha d c onsum e d a

la rge a m ount of a lc ohol on thenight in que stion a nd wa s sta gge ring towa

rd the offic e rs in slow m otion. Theoffic e rs c ould se e that he he ld only a short stic k

in e a c h ha nd— wha t turne d

out to be the two ha lve s of a pool c ue . Whe n he wa s still m ore tha n 20 fe e t from

the offic e rs— a

dista nc e a t whic h

the two stic k s c ould not ha ve pose d a thre at of a

ny signific a n c e
— one of the offic e rs re l e a se d the polic e dog to subdue Prostrollo. Thedog ha d bitte n Prostrollo in the c he st a re a and wa s in the proc e s s of subduing him

whe n Lt. B ayne fire d two shots in ra p i d suc c e s sion. The first shot struc k the dog in theba c k of the ne c k; the se c ond shot struc k Prostrollo in the c he st a

nd kille d him
. On the se fa c ts, a

re a sona ble jury c ould c onc lude tha t Lt. B ayne ’ s use of de a dly forc e wa s unjustifie d. The jury c ould find tha

t, at the tim e Lt. B ayne fire d, the p olic e dog ha d ha lte d Prostrollo’ s a dva n c e and ne utra liz e d wha

te ve r pote ntia l thre a t he m ight ha

ve pose d. Prostrollo wa s still 17 fe e t from the offic e rs whe n he die d , a rm e d only

with two ha lve s of a

pool c ue . A jury

c ould re a sona

bly c o nc lude that a t tha t dista n c e , with a

tra ine d polic e dog a

tta c king him , Prostrollo did not



# FIL ED JAN 24 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALSPa ge 2 of 2

pose an im m e d iate thre a t of de a th or se rious phy sic a l injury to the offic e rs or any one e l se . In the a

bse nc e of suc h a

thre a t, the Fourth Am e ndm e nt prohibits the
use of de a dly

forc e . Se e Te nne

sse e v . Garne r , 471 U.S. 1, 3 (1985). I would re ve rse and a llow the jury to de c ide whe the r Prostrollo’ s fa t he r is
e ntitle d to pre va i l on the Fourth Am e ndm e nt e xc e ssive forc e c la im
.