# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

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

No. 1 7- 33 58

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
Crystal Tho m

ps on ; Z.T., by

an d t hr ou gh hi s n ex t fr ie nd Cry st al Tho m ps on ; Ty le r Hut so n; G.T., III, b y

an d t hr ou gh hi s n ex t fr ie nd Mari nd a Hay de n; S.T., by an d

th ro ug h h er n ex t fr ie nd Mari nd a Hay de n; T.T., by and th ro ug h h er n ex t fr ie nd

Mar in da Hay de n; Geral d Th om ps on ; M ary Est rad a

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

ff s - Ap pe ll ees

v.

And rew Dil l

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

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __

App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t
fo r th e Weste rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - So ut he rn Div is io n

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Nov em

be r 14 , 20 18

Fi le d: Ju ly 23, 2 01 9

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re GRUENDER, KELLY , and GRASZ, Cir cu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

GRASZ, Cir cu it Ju dg e.

Thi s i n t e r lo cu to ry ap pe al is ab ou t whe th er Troo pe r And rew Dil l of th e

Mi ss ou ri Hig hwa y Pat ro l is im m un e fro m a la wsu it fil ed ag ai ns t hi m fo r sh oo ti ng an d

ki ll in g G e r r y Tho m

ps on du rin g Dil l’s res po ns e to a se rio us do m es ti c di st ur ba nc e.The di st ric t co ur t de ni ed Dil l’s m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t, co nc lu di ng th ere were

ge nu in e is su es of m at er i al fact in di sp ut e pr ev en ti ng it fro m co nc lu di ng Dil l was

en ti tl ed to hi s ass ert ed im m un it y de fen se s. Bec au se Dil l’s ap pe al tu rn s on di sp ut ed

is su es of fact as to wha t oc cu rred be fo re th e sh oo ti ng , we la ck ju r i s d i c t io n an d

di sm is s.

I. Ba ck gr ou nd 1

On May 4, 20 16

, la w en fo rcem en t of fic ers were di sp at ch ed to G e r r y an d
Crystal Tho m

ps on ’s res id en ce. The rad io d i s p a tc he r rep or te d th at a m al e ha d

as sa ul te d Crystal an d was no w ho ld in g her an d a sm al l ch il d ag ai ns t th ei r wil l. The

di sp at ch er repo rte d th e m an — who was lat er ide nt ifi ed as Crystal ’s hu sb an d Gerry

— th reat en ed to ki ll Crystal if po li ce cam e to th e ho u se

. Dil l an d ot he r la w

en fo rcem en t o ffi cers fro m va rio us de pa rtments res po nd ed to th e cal l.

Dil l arri ve d at th e res id en ce an d st at io ne d hi m se lf in a ne ig hb or in g y ard to th e

eas t of th e Tho m

ps on res id en ce. The reco rd rev ea l s t h a t a no th er of fic er, Dall as

Co u n t y Dep ut y Sh eri ff Darre n Ch eek

, co nv ers ed wit h Gerry at th e fro nt do or

en tryway an d ul ti m at el y em pl oyed hi s ta se r ag ai ns t Gerry. The ta se r di d no t su bd ue Gerry, an d Gerry tri ed to pu sh Ch eek ou t of th e en tr ywa y an d cl os e th e do or

. Dil l

te st ifi ed th e so un d of th e ta se r co m bi ne d wit h th e fact Ch eek st ag ge red ba ck ward le d

Dil l to be li ev e Gerry ha d sh ot th e of fic er. Dil l th en ob se rv ed Ch eek an d se ve ral ot he r

of fic ers for ci bl y

en te r th e h om e.

W e reci te th e b a c k g r o un d fact s pr im ari ly as se t fo rth in th e di st ric t co ur t’s 1

su m m ary jud gm en t o pi ni on

. Se e Rig gs v. Gib bs

, 92 3 F.3d 51 8, 5 21 (8t h C ir. 2 01 9) (ex pl ai ni ng we m

us t acce pt as tru e th e fact s th e di st ric t co ur t fo un d were ad eq ua te ly

su pp or te d un le ss th ey are bl at an tl y co nt rad ic te d by th e reco rd ). C e r t a in ad di ti on al

un di sp ut ed fact s ar e g le an ed fro m th e rec or d.

-2

-W hi le Gerry an d th e of fic ers were in si de

, Dil l walk ed to ward th e res id en ce an d

lo ok ed in th e fro nt do or , whe re he ob se rv ed Crystal

, wit h bl oo d on he r face

, ho ld in g

a ch il d. Dil l hear d scre am in g, y el li ng , an d ban gi ng in si de th e h ou se an d c on cl ud ed

Gerry w as no t u nd er p ol ic e co nt ro l an d t ha t Cr y st al an d h er ch il d wer e in da ng er.

Gerry so on ch arg ed ou t a se pa rat e d o o r

. Alm os t im m ed ia te ly an d wit ho ut
gi vi ng an y warn in g to Gerry, Dil l di sc ha rg ed h i s f i r e a rm a si ng le ti m e, fat al ly

sh oo ti ng Gerry in hi s rig ht si de

. Dil l tes ti fie d he saw G erry m ov e h is ha nd s t owa rd

hi s wai st ba nd an d t ur n bac k to ward th e do or , whi ch Dil l sai d cau se d hi m to be li ev e Gerry was reac hi ng fo r a gu n to po ss ib ly sh oo t in to th e ho us e. Gerry was act ua ll y

un arm ed . A vid eo ta ke n by Dep ut y Ch eek ’s b od y cam era in si de th e ho us e sh owe d

Gerry ru sh in g ou t of th e ho us e an d s l a mm i n g t he do or sh ut

. Alt ho ug h th e do or

pr ev en te d reco rd in g vi de o of th e act ua l sh oo t i n g , t h e au di o of th e sh oo ti ng was

reco rd ed

.

Gerry’s c h i l dr en an d pa ren ts an d Crystal su ed Dil l in fed eral co ur t. The

c om pl ai nt al le ge d ex ces si ve fo rce in vi ol at io n of 42 U.S.C. § 19 83 an d a Mi ss o u r i

st at e la w cla im

of b at te ry

.

Afte r di sc ov ery, Dil l fil ed a m ot io n fo r su m mar y jud gm en t, cl ai m in g he was

en ti tl ed to qu al ifi ed im m

un it y on th e ex ces si ve fo rce cl ai m an d of fic ia l im m un it y on

th e ba tt ery cl ai m

. The es se nc e of Dil l’s arg um en t was th at hi s de ci si on to us e de ad ly

fo rce was reas on ab le un de r th e ci rcu m st an ces in vo lv ed

, in cl ud in g be c a u s e Dil l

be li ev ed Gerry po se d a th reat to ot he rs co ns id eri ng he “ di so be y ed co m m an ds an d fle d

fro m of fic ers , on ly to im m ed ia te ly tu rn ba c k to ward th em , whi le reac hi ng to hi s

wais tb an d.”

The di st ric t co ur t de ni ed Dil l’s m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t, co nc lu di ng a

ge nu in e is su e of m at eri al fact was in di sp ut e as to whe th er Gerry act ed in a way th at

m ad e it ob

jecti ve ly reas on ab le to be li ev e he po se d an im m ed ia te th reat to of

fic ers or

-3

-ot he rs at th e sc en e. The di st ric t co ur t ex pl ai ne d th e bo dy-cam era vi de o “ sh ows on ly

th e vi ew fro m in si de th e res id en ce, su ch th at th e sh oo ti ng at is su e an d th e act io ns of

Dil l an d [Gerry] oc cu rred on th e ot he r si de of an op aq ue do or .” Thu s, th e d is tri ct

co ur t reas on ed it co ul d no t “ co nc lu de th at [Gerry] reac he d fo r hi s wais t, or ot he rwis e

b e h av ed in a m an ne r th at wou ld ha ve jus ti fie d th e pe rcep ti on th at [Ge r r y] w a s

be ha vi ng in a th reat en in g m an ne r.”

As for th e ba tt ery cl ai m , th e di st ric t cou rt den ie d Dill of fic ia l im m

un it y

. The

di st ric t co ur t cred it ed th e Pl ai nt iff s’ arg um en ts th at th ere were op en fact qu es ti on s as

to wh et he r Dil l act ed m al ic io us ly si nc e Dil l sh ot Gerry al m os t im m ed ia te ly up on

le av in g th e ho us e an d, co nt rary to hi s of fic er tra in in g, wit ho ut fir st gi vi ng Gerry an y

ve rb al warn in g.

Dil l fil ed a ti m el y in te rlo cu to ry ap pe al

, ch al le ng in g th e di st ric t co ur t’s den ia l

of hi s m ot io n fo r su m

m ary jud gm en t on bo th th e § 19 83 ex ces si ve fo rce cl ai m an d

th e Mi ss ou ri b at te ry

cla im

.

II . Anal ys is

Su m m ary jud gm en t is pr op er if a pa rty “ sh ows th at th ere is no ge nu in e di sp ut e

a s t o a n y m at eri al fact an d [h e] i s en ti tl ed to jud gm en t as a m at te r of la w.” Fed . R

. Ci v. P. 56 (a). W he n en ga gi ng in th is an al ys i s , “ th e no nm ov in g pa rty is gi ve n th e

be ne fit of a ll reas on ab le in fere nc es .” Mor ga n v. Co ok , 6 86 F.3 d 4 94 , 49 6 (8 th Cir

. 20 12 ).

In cas es whe re a go ve rn m en t of fic ia l se ek s su m

m ary jud gm en t on th e ba si s of

qu al ifi ed im m

un it y , th e co ur t m

us t en ga ge in a two -s te p i n q u i r y. S e e id

. A

go ve rn m en t of

fic ia l is en ti tl ed to qu al ifi ed im m un it y on a § 19 83 cl ai m un le ss (1 ) “ th e

fact s sh own by th e pl ai nt iff m a k e o u t a vi ol at io n of a co ns ti tu ti on al or st at ut or y

-4

-rig ht ,” an d (2 ) th e “ rig ht was cl earl y es ta bl is he d at th e ti m e of th e de fen da nt ’s al le ge d

m is co nd uc t.” Id

.

Ty pi cal ly, we do no t ha ve juri sd ic ti on ov er a di st ric t co ur t’s de ni al of su m m ary jud gm en t. W he n th e de ni al is ba se d on qu al ifi ed im m un it y , ho wev er, we ha ve li m it ed
juri sd ic ti on to de ci de th e pu rel y le ga l is su e of whe th er th e al le ge d fact s su pp or t a

cl ai m of vi ol at io n of cl earl y es ta bl is he d la w. Se e Rai ne s v. Co un se li ng Ass oc s. In c. , 88 3 F.3 d 10 71

, 10 74 (8 th Ci r. 20 18 ). The st an da rd of rev ie w to reac h th at pa rti cu la r

qu es ti on is de no vo

. Se e id

.

Our juri sd ic ti on do es no t ex te nd to th e is su e of “ whe th er or no t th e pr et ria l

reco rd se ts fo rth a ‘gen ui ne ’ is su e of fact fo r tri al .” Jo hn so n v. Jo ne s , 51 5 U.S. 30 4,

32 0 (1 99 5)

. Co ns eq ue nt ly, we ge ne ral ly do no t ha ve juri sd ic ti on to rev ie w a di st ric t

co ur t’s de ni al of qu al ifi ed im m un it y at th e su m

m ary jud gm en t st ag e si m

pl y be cau se

we di sa gr ee wit h th e di st ric t co ur t as to whe th er th ere is su ffi ci en t ev id en ce to

co nc lu de a m at eri al fact is ge nu in el y in di sp ut e. Se e Rig gs v. Gib bs , 92 3 F .3d 51 8,

52 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 19 ). Ju ris di ct io n is th us typic al ly la ck in g whe re th ere is a di sp ut e of

fact “ at th e he ar t o f t h e a r g um en t.” Id

. (q uo ti ng Aus ti n v. Lo ng , 7 79 F.3 d 52 2, 52 4
(8 th Cir . 20 15 )).

The re is an ex cep ti on to th is ru le

. Rev ers al of a de ni al of qu al ifi ed im m un it y

is warra nt ed “ whe re th e reco rd pl ai nl y fo recl os es th e di st ric t co ur t’s fin di ng of a

m at eri al fact ua l di sp ut e.” Rai ne s , 88 3 F.3 d at 10 74 ; se e al so Sc ot t v. Har ri s , 55 0 U.S.

37 2, 3 80 (20 07 ) (“ W he n op po si ng pa rti es te ll two di ffer en t st or ie s, on e of whi ch is

bl at an tl y co nt rad ic te d by th e reco rd

, s o t h a t n o reas on ab le jury co ul d be li ev e it

, a

co ur t sh ou ld no t ad op t th at ve rs io n of th e fact s fo r pu rp os es of ru li ng on a m ot io n fo r

su m m ary jud gm en t.”)

.

Si m il arl y , we h a v e l i mi te d juri sd ic ti on to rev ie w is su es of la w rel at ed to th e

di st ric t co ur t’s de ni al of su m m a r y jud gm en t ba se d on Dil l’s of fic ia l im m

un it y

-5

-de fen se

. Se e D iv

. of Emp’t Se c., Mo. v. Bd. of Pol ic e Co mm’rs

, 86 4 F.3 d 97 4, 97 8

(8 th Ci r. 20 17 ) (rec og ni zi ng th e “ sc op e of rev ie w is li m it ed to is su es of la w,” whi ch

are rev ie wed d e n ov o, as to de ni al s of cl ai m s of qu al ifi ed im m un it y , so ve rei gn

im m un it y , and off

ic ia l i m m un it y ).

A. Secti on 19 83 Ex ces si ve Forc e Cla im

W it h ou r juri sd ic ti on al li m it at io ns in m in d, we fir st co ns id er th e di st ric t co ur t’s

de ni al of qu al ifi ed im

m un it y to Dil l on th e § 19 83 ex ces si ve fo r c e cl ai m

. An

ex ces si ve for ce cl ai m “ is go ve rn ed by the Fo ur th Am en dm en t’s p ro hi bi ti on ag ai ns t

un reas on ab le se iz ur es .” Lo ch v. Ci ty of Li tc hf ie ld

, 68 9 F.3 d 96 1, 96 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ).

In de ci di ng whe th er an of

fic er’s us e of fo rce am ou nt s to a co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n, th e

qu es ti on tu rn s on whe th er, un de r th e to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces , th e of fic er’s

co nd uc t was r e a s o na bl e. Se e Gra ha m v. Co nn or , 49 0 U.S. 38 6, 39 5– 96 (1 98 9) ;

Rai ne s , 88 3 F .3d at 1 07 4.

“ T he cal cu lu s of reas on ab le ne ss m us t em bo dy al lo wan ce fo r th e fact th at pol ic e

of fic ers are of

te n fo rced to m ak e sp li t-s eco nd jud gm en ts — in ci rcu m st an ces th at are

te ns e, un cert ai n, an d rap id ly ev ol vi ng — ab ou t th e am ou nt of fo rce th at is ne ces sa ry

i n a p a rti cu la r si tu at io n.” Gra ha m , 4 90 U.S. a t 39 6– 97

. Co ur ts th eref or e m us t n o t

m ak e im m un it y co nd it io na l on th e go ve rn m en t of fic er’s “ pu rs u[ in g] th e m os t pr ud en t

co ur se of c on du ct as ju dg ed by 20/ 20 hi nd si gh t v is io n.” Mor ga n , 68 6 F .3d at 4 97

.

W e h av e id en ti fie d cert ai n fact or s as rel ev an t t o d et erm in e if an off ic er’s u se

of for ce was ob

jecti ve ly unr eas on ab le :

-6

-th e rel at io ns hi p be twee n th e ne ed fo r th e us e of fo rce an d th e am ou nt of

fo rce us ed ; th e ex t e n t o f t h e pl ai nt iff ’s in jury; an y effo rt m ad e by th e of fic er to te m

pe r or to li m it th e am ou nt of fo rce; th e se ve rit y o f th e

se cu rit y pr ob le m at is su e; th e th reat reas on ab ly pe rcei ve d by th e of fic er;

an d wh et he r th e p la in ti ff was act iv el y res is ti ng

.

Zu br od v. Hoch , 90 7 F .3d 56 8, 5 77 (8t h C ir. 2 01 8)

.

Our juri sp ru de nc e on th e us e of de ad ly fo rce is pa rti cu la rly rel ev an t he re. W e

ha ve he ld it is no t co ns ti tu ti on al ly un reas on ab le to us e de ad ly fo rce “ if an of fic er ha s

pr ob ab le cau se to be li ev e th a t t h e s u s p e ct po se s a th reat of se rio us ph y si cal ha rm , ei th er to th e of

fic er or ot he rs .” Mor

ga n , 68 6 F

. 3 d a t 49 7. Thi s is tru e ev en if th e

of fic er’s ob jecti ve ly rea so na bl e be li ef or pe rcep ti on ab ou t t he th reat tu rn s o ut to be

m is ta ke n. Se e Lo ch

, 68 9 F.3 d at 96 6. So “ [e]ven if a su sp ect is ul ti m at el y ‘fou nd to

be un arm ed

, a po li ce of

fic er can st il l em

pl oy de ad ly fo rce if ob

jecti ve ly reas on ab le .’ ”

Id

. (q uo ti ng Bil li ng

sl ey v. Ci ty of Omah a , 27 7 F.3 d 99 0

, 9 9 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 02 )). Bu t

whe re it is no t ob

jecti ve ly reas on ab le fo r an of fic er to be l i e v e a s u sp ect po se s an

im m ed ia te th reat to th e of fic er or ot he rs , “ de ad ly fo rce is no t jus ti fie d.” Se e Rai ne s , 88 3 F .3d at 1 07 4 (q uo ti ng Ell is on v. Les he r , 79 6 F .3d 91 0, 9 16 (8t h C ir. 2 01 5) )

.

Si nc e th ere is no di sp ut e Gerry was un arm ed whe n Dil l sh ot an d ki ll ed hi m , th e

cri ti cal qu es ti on is th is : vi ewin g th e ev id en ce in th e li g h t m os t fav or ab le to th e

Pl ai nt iff s, was it ob

jecti ve ly reas on ab le fo r Dil l to be li e v e G e r r y po se d a th reat of

se rio us ph y si cal ha rm to an y on e as he fle d fro m hi s ho us e? If so , th en Dil l is en ti tl ed

to qu al ifi ed im m

un it y an d th us su m

m ary jud gm en t. If no t, th en th e cas e m us t pr oc eed

to tri al

.

The di st ric t co ur t an swe red th is qu es ti on in th e ne ga ti ve , reas on in g th at un de r

th e su m m ary jud gm en t sta nd ard it co ul d no t co nc lu de Gerry “ reac he d fo r hi s wai st

,

or ot he rwis e be h a v e d i n a m an ne r th at wou ld ha ve jus ti fie d th e pe rcep ti on th at
[Gerry] was be ha vi ng in a th reat en in g m an ne r.” Dil l argu es th is was erro r be cau se ,

-7

-at th e m om en t h e em pl oyed d ead ly force , he had reas on to be li ev e Gerry was ab ou t

to cau se de at h or se rio us bo di ly in jury to th e of

fic ers in si de th e res id en ce by reac hi ng

fo r a gu n to sh oo t b a c k i n t o th e ho us e at th e of fic ers

. Dil l co nt en ds th is be li ef was

reas on ab le co ns id er i n g t h e to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces , in cl ud in g th e fact Gerry

reac he d fo r hi s wai st an d t ur ne d b ack to ward th e o ffi cers in si de th e h ou se

.

Dil l m ay ul ti m at el y be ab le to sh ow hi s sp li t-s eco nd de c i s i o n to sh oo t Gerry

was ob jecti ve ly reas on ab le c o n s i d eri ng th e ch ao ti c ci rcu m st an ces

. Bu t we do no t

h a ve juri sd ic ti on to de ci de whe th er or no t we di sa gr ee wit h th e di st ric t c o u r t a s t o

whe th er th ere was su ffi ci en t ev id en ce to fin d a ge nu in e is su e o f mat e r i al fact fo r

res ol ut io n at tri al

. Se e Jo hn so n , 5 1 5 U

. S

. at 31 9– 20

. Tha t qu es ti on is be y on d ou r

l i mi te d juri sd ic ti on un le ss Dil l can sh ow th e reco rd pl ai nl y fo recl os es th e di st ric t

co ur t’s fin di ng th at a m at eri al fact ua l di sp ut e ex is te d as to whe th er Gerry was act in g

in a th reat en in g m an ne r. Se e Rai ne s , 88 3 F .3d at 1 07 4.

Dil l can no t sh ow su ch a on e-s id ed reco rd he re. It is tru e no th in g in th e reco rd

di re ct ly co nt rad ic ts Dil l’s te st im on y th at Gerry reac he d fo r hi s wais tb an d an d tu rn ed

ba ck to ward th e do or as he ex it ed

. A t t h e s a me t im e, th ere is ev id en ce th at co ul d

in di cat e Gerry di d no t act as Dil l de sc rib ed

. Fo r ex am pl e, th e bo dy-cam era reco rd in g 2

ta ke n fro m in si de th e ho us e de m on st r a t e s t h a t Dil l sh ot Gerry immed ia te ly up on

D i l l a r g u es th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ci si on rel ie d on th e fau lt y pr em is e th at to 2

pr ev ai l on su m

m ary jud gm en t an of

fic er’s te st i m on y m

us t be co nf

irmed by vi de o. Dil l co rrec tl y po in ts ou t th ere is no su ch req ui rem en t in th e la w. Howev er, we do no t
in te rp ret th e di st ric t cou rt’s o rd er as im po si ng su ch a ru le . Ins te ad , read in co nt ex t,
th e di st ric t co ur t si m

pl y co nc lu de d th e bo dy cam era vi de o di d no t res ol ve th e fact ua l

di sp u t e a s t o h o w Ge rry be ha ve d as he fle d th e ho us e. In ot he r wor ds , b ecau se th e bo dy cam era vi de o di d no t sh ow th e sh oo ti ng , th e di st ric t co ur t co nc lu de d it di d no t

warra nt di sc red it in g th e Pl ai nt iff s’ ve rs io n of ev en ts at th e su m m ary jud gm en t st ag e

a s pe rm it te d in ap pr op ria te ci rcu m st an ces

. Se e Sc ot t

, 55 0 U.S. at 3 8 0

– 8 1

, 3 8 6 (rev ers in g a de ni al of qu al ifi ed im m un it y in an ex ces si ve for ce case whe re the fact s de pi ct ed by the vi de ot ap e u tt erl y di sc red it ed th e p la in ti ff’s v ers io n o f ev en ts ).

-8

-ex it in g th e ho us e. Co ns id eri ng th is

, on e co ul d qu es ti on whe th er Gerry ev en ha d ti m e

t o r e ach to ward hi s wais t an d tu rn ba ck to ward th e ho us e. The re are al so 3

ph ot og rap hs an d an au to ps y rep or t in th e reco rd cl earl y sh owi ng th e en try wou nd was

on Gerry’ s rig ht si de

, whi ch Pl ai nt iff s a r g u e c as ts do ub t on whe th er Gerry tu rn ed

ba ck to th e h ou se as Di ll tes ti fie d. 4

Thi s ev id en ce do es no t ne ces sa ril y m ean it was un reas on ab le fo r Dil l to be li ev e Gerry pos ed a th reat jus ti fy in g h is us e o f de ad ly force

. Bu t it do es m ean th e rec or d

do es no t pl ai nl y fo recl os e th e di st ric t co ur t’s fin di ng of a fact ua l di sp ut e as to whe th er Gerry’ s act io ns jus t pr io r to th e sh oo ti ng were co ns is te nt wit h Dil l’s te st im on y

. And

res ol ut io n of whe th er th e ev id en ce is su ffi ci en t to m ak e th at di sp ut e “g e nu in e” is

be y on d o ur li m it ed juri sd ic ti on

. Se e Jo hn so n , 51 5 U.S. at 31 9– 20

.

B. Mis so uri Ba tter y Cl ai m

W e ne xt rev ie w th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ni al of su m m ary jud gm en t on th e ba tt ery

cl ai m , as t o wh ic h Di ll ass ert s h e is en ti tl ed to off ic ia l i m m un it y

.

“ Und er th e Mi ss ou ri do ct ri n e of of fic ia l im m

un it y , ‘pub li c of

fic ers act in g

wit hi n th e sc op e of th ei r au th or it y are no t li ab le fo r in juri es ari si ng fro m th ei r

di sc ret io na ry act s or om is si on s, bu t th ey m ay be he ld li ab le fo r to rts co m m it te d whe n

act in g in a m in is te ria l cap aci ty.’ ” Div. of Emp’t Se c., Mo.

, 86 4 F.3 d at 97 9 (q uo ti ng

Mis so ur i ex re l. Hil l v. Bal dr id ge , 18 6 S.W .3d 25 8, 25 9 (Mo

. 20 06 ) (en ba nc )
(cl ean ed up )). An offi cer’s acti on s when in te ract in g wi th “ a su sp ect ed cri m in al are

The vi de o do es no t sh ow Gerry reac hi ng fo r hi s wais t be fo re th e do or cl os ed

. 3

The au to ps y ph ot os an d rep or t in di cat e th e po in t of en try of th e sh ot gu n pe ll et s 4

to be on th e rig ht si de of Gerry’ s bo dy, whi ch was th e si de ne ares t to Dil l whe n Gerry

ex it ed th e ho us e. Pl ai nt iff s arg ue th at if Gerry ha d tu rn ed as Dil l de sc rib ed

, th e en try

wou nd s wo ul d h av e b een ex pe ct ed “ in th e cen te r/b el ly but to n.”

-9

-ge ne ral ly di sc ret io na ry , an d th us th ey are pr ot ect ed by of fic ia l im m

un it y .” Id

. Thi s

in cl ud es whe n a po li ce o f f i c e r “d r aws an d fir es a weap on .” Se in er v. Dre no n , 30 4

F.3 d 8 10 , 81 3 (8 th Cir . 20 02 ).

Howev er, act s pe rfo rm ed in ba d fai th or wit h m al ic e do no t qu a l i f y as

di sc r e t i o n a r y a c ts

. Se e Co nw ay v. St

. Lo ui s Cn ty

. , 25 4 S.W .3d 15 9, 16 5 (Mo

. Ct

. App

. 20 08 ). “ Ba d fai th si gn ifi es a di sh on es t pu rp os e or co ns ci ou s wro ng do in g or

br each of a kn own du ty th ro ug h ul te rio r m ot iv es or il l wil l.” Id

. “ Mal ic e [] req ui res

in te nt

, [an d t]o act w i t h mal ic e th e of fic er m us t do th at whi ch a m an of reas on ab le

in te l l i g en ce wou ld kn ow to be co nt rary to hi s du ty an d in te nd su ch act io n to be

in juri ou s t o a no th er.” Id

.

Und er ou r li m it ed rev ie w, we do no t ha ve juri sd ic ti o n t o rev ers e th e di st ric t

co ur t’s de te rm in at io n th at th ere were op en fact qu es ti on s as to whe th er Dil l act ed

m al ic io us ly. Dil l sh ot Gerry im m ed ia te ly an d, co nt rary to hi s tra in in g, wit ho ut

warn in g, whe n Gerry fle d th e ho us e. F ur th er, th e au to ps y ph ot og rap hs an d rep or t

rai se do ub t as to Dil l’s cl ai m th at Gerry tu rn ed ba ck to ward t h e d o o r

. Co ns id eri ng

th os e fact s, an d di sc ou nt in g Dil l’s te st im on y th at Gerry reac he d fo r hi s wais t an d

act ed in a th reat en in g m an ne r, “ a jury co ul d fin d th at [Dil l] act ed wit h th e pr oh ib it ed

. . . m al ic e.” Div. of Emp ’t Se c., Mo.

, 86 4 F.3 d at 98 0. Onc e ag ai n, Dil l m ay ve ry

well sh ow hi s acti on s were reas on ab le an d con si st en t with hi s d ut y , bu t we ha ve no

ba si s t o d eci de th at fact ua l q ue st io n u nd er o ur li m it ed juri sd ic ti on

.

II I. Co ncl us io n

W e d is m is s t he ap pe al for lac k o f juri sd ic ti on

.

-1 0-KELLY, Cir cu it Ju dg e, co nc ur rin g.

I co nc ur in th e co ur t’s op in io n, bu t mind fu l of ou r la ck of juri sd ic ti on ov er

Dil l’s ap pe al

, I wou ld of fer n o c o mm e n t on th e li ke li ho od of wha t ei th er pa rty

u l t i matel y m ay be ab le to sh ow wit h res pe ct to whe th er Dil l’s act io ns w e r e

reas on ab le

.

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

-1 1-