2009 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 7-13-2009 

# C arol M anigault v

. C hri s t ophe r King P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 08-3810

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " C ar o l M ani gault v

. C hri s t op he r Kin g " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1021. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/1021NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o. 08- 3810 C A R O L M A N I G A U L T , I ndi vi dual l yand as A dm i ni s t r at i x ad Pr os equendum and G ener al A dm i ni s t r at i x of the Est at e of J el ani D arr en M ani gaul t , D ece as ed; A N D R E W M A N I G A U L T , I ndi vi dual l yand as par ent s and N atur al G uar di ans of Je lan i D a rre n M a n ig a u lt,

A p p e llan ts v. CH RI STOPHER K I NG ; HA RRY M AR TI NEZ; FRED W I LLI AM S; J UD D PETRO NE; TOW NSH I P OF P RI NC ETON ; PRI NC ETON TOW NSH I P P OLI CE D EPARTM ENT; J O H N A N D J A N E D O E S 1- 10; A B C C O R P. 1- 10; X Y Z E N T I T I E S 1- 10

A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt fort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D . C . C i vi l A ct i on N o. 3- 05- cv- 00422) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e A nne E. T hom ps on Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J ul y10, 2009 B efor e: SL O V I T E R , A M B R O , and J O R D A N , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed J ul y13, 2009 )

OP I NI ON2

A M B R O , C i r cui tJ udge I n thi s t r agi c ca s e, Pr i ncet on T ow ns hi p Pol i ce O ffi cer s fat al l ys hotJ el ani M a n i g a u l twh i l e a t t e mp t i n g t o a r r e s th i m. M a n i g a u l t ’ s p a r e n t s , Ca r o l a n d An d r e w, br oughtthi s act i on under42 U . S. C . § 1983, as s ert i ng thatthe off i cer s us ed exc es s i ve f o rc e a n d a p p ro a c h e d th e irs o n in a m a n n e r t h a t v io la te d h is F o u rt h A m e n d m e n t r ig h ts . T he D i s tr i ctC our tgr ant ed s um m aryj udgm enti n favorof the off i cer s , rul i ng thatthey we r e e n t i t l e d t o q u a l i f

i e d i mmu n i t y . W e a f

f i r m. I. I n the ea r l yhour s of J anuary23, 2003, the Pr i ncet on T ow ns hi p Pol i ce r ece i ved an emer gencycal l fr om M r s . M art ha Sw or d. She i nform ed them t hatan i ntruderhad ent er ed herhom e and w as at t acki ng herhus band and br other . T he i ntruder , M ani gaul t , had cra sh ed h is car into a tr ee o n the S w o rd’s p rop ertyan d en tered to the irh o m e w h en M r. Sw or d opened the doort o s ee i f M ani gaul tneede d hel p. O nce i ns i de, M ani gaul t , w ho w as w ea ri n g n o jack et or sh o es, gra b b ed a k n ife f rom the k it ch en an d b eg an stab b ing M r. S w o rd . M rs. S w o rd ’s b ro th e r, R o b e rt S u lli v a n , ca m e to M r. S w o rd ’s a id a n d h e lp e d h im for ce M ani gaul tout s i de. M ani gaul t , how ever , r eent er ed the hous e, r egai ned contr ol of the kni fe, and bega n s l i t t i ng hi s w r i s t s . A tthi s poi nt , Sul l i van for ced hi m back out s i de and secured t he d oo rs . O ff icers Ju d d P etron e a n d H arryM arti n ez arrived at th e d ri v ew ayo f th e S w o rd’s hom e aboutt he s ame t i m e thatSul l i van managed t o l ock M ani gaul tout s i de. A ft er3

in s p e c tin g M a n ig a u lt’ s c ra s h e d c a r, t h e o f f ic e rs b e g a n w a lk in g to w a rd th e S w o rd ’s h o m e . M eanw hi l e, O ffi cer s Fr ed W i l l i ams and Chri s t opherK i ng arr i ved and f ol l ow ed Petr one a n d M a r t i n e z u p t h e S w o r d ’ s d r i v e w a y. O ffi cerM ar t i nez w as t he fi r s tt o s potM ani gaul t . H e or der ed hi m t o “dr op the k n ife,” an d p u rsue d h im into the S w o rd’s d en selyw o o d ed y ard . T h e o ther o ff icers hurr i ed t o j oi n M art i nez a nd enci r cl e M ani gaul t . R el y i ng on t hei rfl as hl i ght s forl i ght , t he o f f ice rs c o n tin u o u slyc o m m a n d e d M a n ig a u lt, w h o w a s c o v e re d in b lo o d , to d ro p h is kni fe. A ft ers om e t i m e, M ani gaul tturned hi s back t o t he off i cer s . T hi nki ng thathe w as su b m itt in g , O f

f ice rs M a rtin e z a n d P e tro n e b e g a n to a p p ro a c h h im . A s th e yc lo se d to wi th i n f i f t e e n f e e t , h o we v e r , M a n i g a u l ts p u n a r o u n d , f a c e d Of f i c e rKi n g , a n d s t a t e d , “ Go ahea d and ki l l m e” or“Y ou’ r e goi ng t o have t o ki l l m e. ” H e then cha r ged K i ng w i t h t he k n if e . B a c k in g u p , K in g trip p e d o n a tre e stu m p a n d f e ll t o th e g ro u n d . A s M a n ig a u lt cont i nued hi s char ge, K i ng fi r ed hi s gun. H i tw i t h K i ng’ s bul l et , M ani gaul tbentfr om the w ai s tand turned t ow ar d M art i nez w i th kni fe i n hand. A tt hi s poi nt , K i ng w as pr epar ed t o fi r e more s hot s butl os ts i ghtof M ani gaul t , and Petr one w as pr event ed fr om fi r i ng beca us e M art i nez w as i n hi s l i ne- off ir e . M a rt in e z th e n f

ir e d tw o q u ic k s h o ts a t “ a lm o s t th e e x a c t s a m e tim e ” a s K in g ’s s h o t. O n e o f th e se sh o ts k ill e d M a n ig a u lt. M ani gaul t ’ s par ent s fi l ed thi s s ui tagai ns tthe off i cer s , T ow ns hi p, and otherO n appea l , t he M ani gaul t s do notpr es s anyof thei rpr evi ous l yr ai s ed s t at e cl ai m s or 1 th e ir§ 1 9 8 3 c la im a g a in s t th e T o w n s h ip a n d o th e r e n titie s . T h e s e c la im s a re th u s w a iv e d . S e e Ko p e c v . T a te , 3 6 1 F . 3 d 7 7 2 , 7 7 5 n . 5 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). 4 enti t i es, al l eging, am on g o t her things, a § 1 98 3 clai m st em m i ng from the o ffi cers ’ as s er t ed us e of e xces s i ve for ce a nd unr eas onabl e ac t i ons . T he off i cer s m oved for s um m aryj udgm ent , ar gui ng t hatt heyw er e ent i t l ed t o qual i fi ed i m m uni t y . T he D i s t r i ct C o u rt g ra n te d th e m o tio n . See M anigaul tv. K i ng , N o. 05- 0422, 2008 W L 3887609, at *5–6 ( D . N . J . A ug. 21, 2008) . T he M ani gaul t s appea l ed. II. T he D i s t r i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on under28 U . S. C . § 1331. W e have j ur i s di ct i on under28 U . S. C . § 1291. Ou rr e v i e w o f

t h e Di s t r i c tCo u r t ’ s g r a n to f s u mm a r yj u d g me n ti s p l e n a r y , “ b u twe m us tvi ew t he fa ct s i n t he l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o t he non- m ovi ng par t y . ” Fontr oy v. B eard , 559 F. 3d 173, 177 ( 3d C i r . 2009) . Sum m aryj udgm enti s appr opr i at e w hen no gen uine i ssues of m at eri al factexis tand the m ov i ng partyi s ent i t l ed to j ud gm ent as a m a tte r o f la w . S e e C e lo tex C o rp . v. C a tre tt , 4 7 7 U . S . 3 1 7 , 3 2 2

– 2 3 (19 8 6 ). III . M ani gaul t ’ s par ent s ar gue thatw e s houl d vaca t e the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s gr antof su m m a ryju d g m e n t b e c a u se th e T o w n sh ip o f f ice rs u se d d e a d lyf

o rc e a n d u n re a so n a b ly appr oache d t hei rs on i n vi ol at i on of hi s Four t h A m endmentr i ght s . T he off i cer s r es pond 1 th a t th e ya re e n tit led to su m m a ryju d g m e n t b a se d o n q u a lifie d im m u n ityb e c a u se th e ir5

a c tio n s w e re o b

je c tiv e ly re a s o n a b le u n d e r t h e c ir c u m s ta n c e s . Q u a lifie d im m u n itysh ield s g o v e rn m e n t o f f icia ls f ro m c iv il d a m a g e s lia b ili ty “i ns ofaras t hei rconductdoes notvi ol at e cl ear l yes t abl i s hed s t atut oryorcons t i tut i onal r i ght s of w hi ch a r eas onabl e per s on w oul d have know n. ” H a rlo w v . F itzg e ra ld , 45 7 U. S. 8 0 0 , 8 1 8 (19 8 2 ). U n d er Sa u c ierv . Ka tz , we typ i c a l l yr e s o l v e q u a l i f i e d i mmu n i t yc l a i ms undera tw o- s t ep t es t , deci di ng ( 1) w hetherfac t s al l eged ors how n m ake outthe vi ol at i on of a c ons t i tut i onal r i ght , and ( 2) i f s o, w hetherthatr i ghtw as cl ear l yes t abl i s hed atthe tim e o f th e d e f e n d a n t’s m isc o n d u c t. 53 3 U .S . 1 9 4 , 2 0 1 (2 0 0 1 ). T h e S u p re m e C o u rt, how ever , hel d i n P ears on v. C al l ahan th a t “c o u rts o f a p p e a ls s h o u ld b e p e rm itt e d to exer ci s e thei rs ound di s cr et i on i n deci di ng w hi ch of the tw o pr ongs of the qual i fi ed i m m uni tyanal y s i s s houl d be addr es s ed fi r s ti n l i ghtof the ci r cumst ance s i n t he part i cul ar cas e athand. ” P ears on , U . S . , 1 2 9 S . C t. 8 0 8 , 8 1 8 (20 0 9 ). T h e D istri ct C o u rt ’s deci s i on, r ender ed bef

or e P ears on , ad d re ss e d th e f irst ste p — w h e th e r th e T o w n sh ip o f f ice rs’ u se o f

d e a d lyf o rc e w a s u n c o n stitu tio n a l. W e se e n o re a so n , p o st- P ears on , to al t ert hatappr oach he r e. A p o lice o f

f ice r’s u se o f

d e a d lyf o rc e is p e rm iss ib le o n lyif it i s o b jec tiv e ly re a s o n a b le u n d e r t h e c ir c u m s ta n c e s . See G r aham v. C onnor , 4 9 0 U .S . 3 8 6 , 3 9 9 (1 9 8 9 ). A s s es s i ng t he r eas onabl enes s of an of fi cer ’ s us e of de adl yfor ce r equi r es car eful at t ent i on t o “the s ever i t yof the cr i m e ati s s ue, w hetherthe s us pectpos es an i m m edi at e thr eatt o t he sa f e tyo f th e o f f ice r o r o th e rs, . . . w h e th e r h e is a c tiv e lyre sis tin g a rre st o r a ttem p tin g to6

evade arr es tbyfl i ght , . . . t he dur at i on of the off i cer ’ s act i on, . . . the pos s i bi l i t ythatt he suspectm aybe arm ed, and t he n um ber of p ers on s w i t h w ho m the p oli ce of fi cers m ust cont end atone t i m e. ” C o u d e n v . D u ffy , 446 F. 3d 483, 496–97 ( 3d C i r . 2006) ( i nt ernal cit ati o n s o m itted). V i ew i ng t he fa ct s i n t he l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o t he M ani gaul t s , w e conc l ude, as th e D istric t C o u rt d id , tha t th e T o w n sh ip o f f ice rs’ u se o f

d e a d lyf o rc e w a s o b

jec tiv e ly r eas onabl e undert he ci r cumst ance s . A tthe t i m e he w as s hot , M ani gaul thad s t abbed a m an and i nvaded a hom e. H e w as cover ed i n bl ood, arm ed w i t h a dea dl yw eapon, di d not re sp o n d to c o m m a n d s, a n d w a s in th e p ro c e ss o f lu n g in g a t an o f

f ice r w h o h a d f

a llen to the gr ound. T o be s ur e, M ani gaul t ’ s l ack of a j acke tors hoes and s l i tw r i s t s m ayhave gi ven the off

i cer s s om e i ndi cat i on t hathe w as m ent al l yunw el l , butgi ven the darknes s of the s cene and br i ef t i m e per i od i n w hi ch i tunfol ded, thes e i ndi cat or s coul d notcontr ol t he offi cer s ’ act i ons . M or eover , t he fa ctthatM ani gaul tbentfr om the w ai s tand turned af t er K in g ’s b u llet stru c k h im d id n o t m a k e it u n re a so n a b le f o r M a rtin e z to f

ire h is w e a p o n a t a near l ys i m ul t aneous t i m e. T hus , no genui ne i s s ues of m at er i al fac texi s toverw hethert he o ff icers u sed d ea d lyfo rce in an o b jecti v elyu n rea so n ab le m an n er. I n addi t i on, t he M ani gaul t s ’ cl ai m thatthe off i cer s appr oache d t hei rs on i n a w ay thatvi ol at ed hi s Four t h A m endmentr i ght s m us tfai l . A l t hough the off i cer s w er e tr ai ned to m a in tain a d ista n c e o f a t lea st 2 1 f

e e t w h e n f

a c in g a su sp e c t ca rry in g a k n if e , the ir abandonmentof thi s pr ot ocol cannotform the bas i s fora r emedyunder§ 1983 ordepr i ve7

th e m o f q u a lif ie d im m u n ity. S e e C o lli n s v . C ity o f H a rk e r He ig h ts , 503 U . S. 115, 119 ( 1992) ( hol di ng t hat§ 1983 does notpr ovi de a r emedyi f ther e i s no vi ol at i on of fe der al law ); D avis v. Scher er , 46 8 U . S . 18 3, 19 4 (198 4) ( no t i ng that offi ci al s do n ot l ose qual i fi ed i m m uni t yw her e theyvi ol at e admi ni s t r at i ve di r ect i ves ) . Fur t herm or e, undert he ci r cumst ance s , i tw as r eas onabl e forM art i nez a nd Pet r one t o appr oach M ani gaul t , w ho had turned h i s back o n them and app eared t o b e subm i t t i ng t o thei r com m and s. * * * * * F o r th e se re a so n s, w e a f f irm th e D istric t C o u rt’s g ra n t o f su m m a ryju d g m e n t.