# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls
For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 8- 31 29

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Jo hn ni e Cam

pb el l; Keit he n D. Pet tu s; Jo se ph P. W il li am s

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff s - Ap pe ll ees

v.

Ch ris to ph er J oh an ne s, In di vi du al ly and in hi s o ffi ci al cap aci ti es

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

Ci ty of Lit tl e Ro ck , A Mun ic ip al Co rp or at io n a nd Pu bl ic Bo dy Corp or at e an d
Po li ti c; Stu art Tho m as , In h is off ic ia l ca pa ci ty as Ch ie f of

Po li ce, Lit tl e Ro ck
Po li ce Dep art m en t; Kent on Bu ck ne r, In hi s o ffi ci al cap aci ty as Ch ie f of Po li ce, Lit tl e Ro ck Po li ce Dep art m en t; Park Pla za M al l CM BS LLC; ERMC II LP; Tri st a Si m m on s; Sara Hawki ns ; J oh n Do es , 1 - 1 0; Jo hn Doe C or po rat io n, 4 - 5

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t s

__

__ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Eas te rn Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s - Li tt le Ro ck

__

__ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Sep te m

be r 23 , 20 19 Fi le d: Sep te m

be r 26 , 20 19 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re BENTON, KELL Y, and ERICKSON, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __PER CURI AM.

In th is 42 U.S.C. § 19 83 act io n, Jo hn ni e Cam pb el l, Keit he n Pet tu s, an d Jo se ph

W il li am s su ed Ci ty of Lit tl e Ro ck po li ce of fic er Ch ris to ph er Jo ha nn es , cl ai m in g th at
he vi ol at ed th ei r Fo ur th Am en dm en t rig ht s by us in g ex ces si ve fo rce ag ai ns t th em

. Jo ha nn es ap pe al s th e di st ric t co ur t’s in te rlo cu to ry or de r d e n yin g hi m su m m ary 1 jud gm en t b as ed on qu al ifi ed im m un it y

.

In an ap pe al fro m an in te rlo cu to ry or de r de nyin g q u a li fie d im m un it y , th is

co ur t’s juri sd ic ti on is li m it ed to rev ie win g ab st ract is su es o f la w, whi ch in cl ud e whe th er th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in rel y in g on in ad m is si bl e ev id en ce , s ee Jo ne s v.
McNe es e, 74 6 F.3 d 88 7, 89 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ); an d whe th er th e co nd uc t th e di st ric t

co ur t fo un d pr op erl y su pp or te d at su m m ary ju d g men t co ns ti tu te d a vi ol at io n of a cl earl y es ta

bli shed co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht

, se e Sh an no n v. Koe hl er, 61 6 F.3 d 85 5, 86 0- 62 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ). Thi s co ur t la ck s juri sd ic ti on ov er an in te rlo cu to ry or de r de nyin g

qu al ifi ed im m

un it y , ho wev er, whe n th e de ni al was pr em is ed on th e di s t ric t co ur t’s

fin di ng of a m at eri al fact ua l di sp ut e. See Rai ne s v. Co un se li n g Ass oc s., In c., 88 3

F.3 d 10 71

, 10 74 (8 th Ci r. 20 18 ). Thi s co ur t rev ie ws th e di st ric t co ur t’s qu al ifi ed

im m un it y de te r mi n a t i o n de no vo , vi ewin g th e reco rd in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to
Pl ai nt iff s, dr awin g al l reas on ab le in fere nc es in th ei r fav or , an d acce pt in g as tru e th e fact s th e di st ric t co ur t fo un d ad eq ua te ly su pp or te d, to th e ex te nt th ey are no t bl at an tl y

co nt rad ic te d b y

th e rec or d. Se e Sh an no n, 6 16 F.3d at 8 61 -6 2.

W e fir st co nc lu de th at th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n by de cl in in g

to acce pt cert ai n fact s in Jo ha nn es ’s st at e men t o f f act s as un di sp ut ed ba se d on Pl ai nt iff s’ f ai lu re to su pp or t th ei r de ni al of th os e fact s wit h sp e c i fic ci ta ti on s to th e

su m m ary jud gm en t reco rd

, gi ve n th at Pl ai nt iff s su bm it te d e v i d e n c e sh owi ng th e

The Hon or ab le Bi ll y Ro y W il so n, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e East ern 1
Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s.

-2

-ex is te nc e of ge nu in e fact ua l di sp ut es

. See Fed

. R. Ci v. P. 56 (c)( 1) (as rel ev an t, pa rty

as se rti ng fact is ge nu in el y di sp ut ed m us t su pp or t as se rti on by ci ti ng to pa rti cu la r pa rts
of m at eri al s in reco rd or by sh owi ng m at eri al s ci te d d o n o t e s t ab li sh ab se nc e of

ge nu in e di sp ut e), (e)( 2) (if pa rty fai ls to pr op erl y ad dr es s an ot he r pa rty’ s as se rti on of

fact as req ui red by Ru le 56 (c), co ur t m ay co ns id er th at fact un di sp ut ed fo r pu rp os es of ru l i n g o n su m

m ary jud gm en t m ot io n)

, ad vi so ry co m m it te e’s no te to 20 10

am en dm en t (Ru le 56 (e)( 2) au th or iz es di st ric t co ur t to co ns id er fact un di sp ut ed whe n
Ru le 56 (c)’s res po ns e req ui rem en ts are no t m et
, bu t co ur t m ay ch oo se no t to co ns id er fact un di sp ut ed

, pa rti c ul arl y if it kn ows of reco rd m at eri al s th at sh ow gr ou nd s fo r

ge nu in e di sp ut e); cf. U ni te d Stat es v. Fin de tt Co rp ., 22 0 F.3d 84 2, 84 8 n.5 (8 th Ci r.
20 00 ) (rev ie win g fo r ab us e of di sc ret io n di st ric t co ur t’s de ci si on to acce pt fact s ba se d

on pa rty’ s fai lu re to ci te to reco rd in su m m ary jud gm en t res po ns e). W e al so co nc lu de

th at th e d i s tri ct co ur t di d no t err in co ns id eri ng , as pa rt of Pl ai nt iff s’ su bm is si on , Jo ha nn es ’s st at em en t m ad e in th e co ur se of an in te rn al -in ve st ig at io n in to th e in ci de nt

. See Fed . R . C iv . P . 5 6( c)(1 )(A) (p art y o p p o s i n g su m m ary jud gm en t m ay sh ow th at
fact is ge nu in el y di sp ut ed by ci ti ng to ad m is si on s) ; El is eri o v . Uni te d S te el wor ke rs of Am

. Loc al 31 0, 39 8 F.3 d 10 71

, 10 78 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ) (p art y -o pp on en t ad m is si on s sh ou ld be co ns id ered at s um m ary jud gm en t).

Nex t, we co nc lu de th at th is co ur t la ck s juri sd ic ti on ov er Jo ha nn es ’s arg um en t
th at
, ha d th e di st ric t co ur t acce pt ed hi s as se rti on s as to th e ev id en ce pr op erl y be fo re th e co ur t, th e su m

m ary jud gm en t re co rd wou ld ha ve fo recl os ed th e fin di ng of m at eri al

fact ua l di sp ut es

. See Tho m ps on v. Mu rray, 80 0 F.3 d 97 9, 98 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 15 ) (d is m is si ng ap pe al fo r la ck o f ju r i s di ct io n be cau se de fen da nt s’ arg um en ts ab ou t
de ni al of qu al ifi ed im m

un it y were pr em is ed on fact s di st ric t co ur t h a d n o t l ik el y

as su m ed at su m

m ary jud gm en t an d es se nt ia ll y ch al le ng ed d et erm in at io n th at th ere

were g en ui ne di sp ut es of m at eri al fact ).

Fi na ll y , we co nc lu de th at
, in Decem be r 20 11

, whe n th e in ci de nt oc cu rred

, it

was cl earl y es ta bl is he d th at Pl ai nt iff s co ul d no t be ap pr eh en de d by de ad ly fo rce

-3

-un le ss th ey po se d a th reat of se rio us ph y si cal ha r m. S e e id . a t 98 3- 84 (o ffi cer m ay

no t us e de ad ly fo rce ag ai ns t fle ei ng su sp ect un le ss su sp ect p os es im m ed ia te an d

s i g n i f ic an t th reat of se rio us in

jury or de at h to of

fic er or to bysta nd ers ; th is ge ne ra l

st an da rd can be su ffi ci en t to cl earl y es ta bl is h fle ei ng su sp ect ’s rig ht s in cas e whe th er th ey ha ve ob vi ou sl y be en in fri ng ed ); Nan ce v. Sam m is

, 58 6 F.3 d 60 4, 61 1 (8 th Ci r.
20 09 ) (“ Exi st in g cas e la w wou ld ha ve m ad e it su ffi ci en tl y cl ear th at a su sp ect can no t
be ap pr eh en de d by us e of de ad ly fo rce un le ss th at in di vi du al po se s a th reat of se rio us ph y si cal ha rm .”); Crai gh ead v. Lee, 39 9 F.3 d 95 4, 96 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ) (co ll ec t in g

cas es t h a t h a d po li ce of

fic ers on no ti ce th at th ey m ay no t us e de ad ly fo rce whe re

su sp ect do es no t p res en t i m m ed ia te th reat of s eri ou s p hysic al in jury).

Acco rd in gl y , we di sm is s th is ap pe al to th e ex te nt Jo h an ne s ch al le ng es th e di st ric t cou rt’s fin di ng of a m at eri al fact ua l di sp ut e, an d affi rm in al l ot he r res pe ct s.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-4

-