UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
STEVEN O. PETERSEN, on behalf of L.P., a minor and beneficiary and as Personal Representative of the estate of Steven V. Petersen, Plaintiff

- Appellant,
v. LEWIS COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Washington; MATTHEW MCKNIGHT, Defendants

- Appellees. No. 14
- 35201 D.C. No. 3:12
- cv - 05908
- RBL Western District of Washington, Tacoma ORDER

Before: HAWKINS and McKEOWN, * Circuit Judges. The request for rehearing is granted with respect to the excessive force issue
. The previous Memorandum (Dkt. 47 ) is withdrawn and shall be replace d with the Amended Memorandum filed concurrently with this order. The full court has been advised of the petition for rehearing en banc, and no judge has requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. Fed. R. App. P. 35.

* The Honorable Andre M. Davis, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, is no longer sitting by designation due to his retirement. 

# FILED
SEP 22 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2

The petition for rehearing is denied except to the extent noted above. IT IS SO ORDERED.N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
STEVEN O. PETER SEN, on be ha l f of L.P., a m inor a

nd be ne fic i a ry

a nd a s Pe rsona l R e pre s e ntat i ve of the e sta te of Ste ve n V. Pe te rse n,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. LEW IS C O UNTY, a

politic a l subdivision of the Sta te of W a s hington; M ATTHEW M C K NIGHT, De fe nda n ts-Appe lle e s. No. 14-35201 D.C . No. 3:12-c v-05908-R B L
AM ENDED M EM OR

ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Sta t e s Distric t C ourt for the W e ste rn Distric t of W a shington R o n a ld B
. Le ighton, Distric t Judge , Pre siding A rgue d a nd Subm itte d

Se pte m be r 2, 2016 Se a ttle , W a s hington B e fore : HAW KINS a n d M c KEOW N , ** C i rc u it Judge s. 

# F IL ED
SEP 22 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.

* * The Honora

ble Andre M . Da v is, Se nior C irc uit Judge for the U.S. C ourt of Appe a ls for the Fourth C irc uit, is no longe r sitting by de signa

tion due to his re tire m e nt.Ste ve n Pe te rse n a ppe a l s the distric t c ourt’ s gra nt of Le wis C ounty ’ s (“ the C ounty ” ) a nd M a t the w M c Knight’ s m otion for sum m a ry judgm e nt on qua l ifie dim m unity grounds in Pe t e rse n ’ s 42 U.S.C . § 1983 la wsuit a rising from

the shooting of his son. W e ha ve jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C
. § 1291, a nd we re vie w de novo the g ra nt of sum

m a ry judgm e nt. S

e e Fair Hous. C

ounc il of Riv e rside

C ty ., Inc . v . Riv e rside Tw o , 249 F.3d 1132, 1135 (9th C ir. 2001). W e c onside r this c a s e on
re m a nd from

the Supre m e C ourt a

nd a ffirm
. The distric t c ourt e rre d by finding tha

t the re we re m a te ria l fa c tua l dispute s
re ga rding whe the r M c Knight’ s use of de a dly forc e wa s re a sona

ble . The re c ord
re fle c t s tha

t Pe te rse n re fuse d to he e d M c Knight’ s c om m a n ds a nd sta rte d to c ha

rge M c K night. At the

tim e he use d forc e , M c Knight kne w tha t a pe rson m a tc h ing Pe te rse n’ s de sc ription wa s in the a re a a nd m ight be a rm e d with a knife
. Give n the s e fa c t s, M c Knight’ s a c tions we re re a s ona ble ; he did not a c t

with e xc e ssive forc e in viola

tion of Pe te rse n’ s c onstitutiona l rights. Eve n if M c K

night ha d a c te d unre a sona bly , Pe t e rse n fa ile d to ide ntify a ny
c le a rly e sta blishe d la w putting M c Knight on notic e tha t, unde r the s e fa c t s, his
c onduc t wa s unla

wful. Se e W

hite v . Pauly , 137 S. C t . 548, 552 (2017) (pe r c uriam ) (re ite ra ting “ the longsta

nding princ iple tha

t ‘ c le a rly e s ta blishe d la w’ should not be
2de fine d ‘ a t a high le ve l of ge ne ra lity ’ ” (c ita tions om i tte d )). The distric t c ourt the re fore c orre c tly

gra n te d qua lifie d im

m unity to M c Knight on the

e xc e ssive forc e
c la im
. The distric t c ourt a p propria te ly gra nte d sum

m a ry judgm e nt to the C ounty

on Pe te rse n’ s m

unic ipa l lia

b ility c la im . Pe t e rse n fa ile d to pre se nt e vide nc e tha t a ny of the C ounty ’ s polic ie s we re a “ m oving forc e ” be hind the shooting. Mone ll v . De p’t of Soc . Se rv

s. , 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978). Additiona lly , Pe te rse n fa i le d to ide ntify de fic ie nc ie s in M c Knight’ s tra i ning tha t e sta blish a showing of de libe ra te indiffe re nc e . Se e C

onnic k v . Thompson , 563 U.S. 51, 61 (2011) (“ [A]
m unic ipa lity ’ s fa ilure to tra in its e m ploy e e s in a re le v a nt re spe c t m ust a m ount to

‘ d e l ibe ra te indiffe re nc e to the rights of pe rsons with whom the [untra ine d
e m ploy e e s] c om e into c onta c t.’ ” (quoting C ity of C anton v . Harris , 489 U.S. 378, 388 (1989) (a lte ra tion in origina l))). Like wise , the distric t c o urt a ppropria t e ly gra nte d sum

m a ry judgm e nt to the C ounty a n d M c Knight on Pe te rse n’ s substa ntive due proc e ss c la im

be c a use he fa ile d to show tha

t M c Knight’ s a c tions “ s hoc k[] the c onsc ie nc e .” Se e C ty . of Sac rame nto v . Le w i

s , 523 U.S. 833, 846–47 (1998) (outlining the sta nda rd for
e xe c utive a c tion tha

t viola t e s substa ntive due proc e ss).

3The distric t c ourt prope rly gra nte d sum

m a ry judgm e nt for M c Knight on the sta te -law ne glige nc e c la i m

be c a use , for the re a sons a ddre sse d a bove re ga rding Pe te rse n’ s e xc e s sive forc e c la im , M c Knight’ s a c tions we re re a sona ble
. Galle

gos v . Fre e man , 291 P.3d 265, 277 (W a sh. C t. App. 2013) (“ An offic e r is e n title d to sta te la w qua lifie d im

m unity whe re the offic e r (1) c a rrie s out a sta tutory duty , (2)
a c c ording to proc e dure s dic ta t e d to him by sta tute a nd supe riors, a

nd (3) ac ts
re asonably .” (e m

p ha s is a dde d) (inte rna l quota tion m a rks a

nd c ita tions om itte d)). The re fore , sum

m a ry judgm e nt wa s a lso prope rly gra n te d for the C ounty

on Pe te rse n’ s vic a rious lia

bility c la im
. Fina lly , the distric t c ourt a ppropria te ly gra nte d

sum m a ry judgm e nt for the C ounty on Pe te rse n’ s sta

te -law c la im s for fa ilure to tra in a nd ne g lige nt supe rvision be c a use the re is no indic a tion tha t M c Knight a c t e d outside the sc ope of his
e m ploy m e nt. Id. a t 257 (“ Unde r W a shington La w, . . . a c la i m

for ne glige nt hiring, tra ining, a

nd supe rvision is ge

ne ra lly im prope r whe n the e m

ploy e r c onc e d e s the
e m ploy e e ’ s a c tions oc c urre d within the c ourse a nd sc o pe of the e m ploy m e nt.” ). Ea c h pa rty sha ll be a r its own c osts on a

ppe a l. AFFIRM E D.

4