# 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- 18 03

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

Pi pe r Part rid ge , Ind iv id ua ll y as m ot he r an d n ex t o f ki n t o Kea ga n S ch weik le an d

as Sp eci al Adm in is tra tri x o f th e Est at e o f Keag an Sch weik le ; Do m in ic Sch weik le

,

In di vi du al ly as fat he r an d n ex t o f ki n t o Kea ga n S ch weik le

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

ff s - Ap pe ll an ts

v.

Ci ty of Ben to n, Ark an sa s; Ky le Ell is on , Ind iv id ua ll y an d a s Em

pl oyee of Cit y of

Ben to n, Ark an sa s; Kirk Lane , Ind iv id ua ll y an d a s Em

pl oyee of Cit y of B en to n, A rk an sa s; John D o e s , 1 -2 0, In div idu al ly an d as E m plo y ee s of Ci ty of Be nto n, A rk an sa s

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

an ts - App el le es

__ __ __ __ __ __
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: Marc h 7 , 20 19
Fi le d: Ju ly 3, 20 19

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re BENTON, MELLOY, an d S HEPHERD, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __

BENTON, Circu it Ju dg e.

Ben to n po li ce of

fic er Ky le Ell is on sh ot an d ki ll ed 17 -y ear- ol d Keag an

Sch weik le

. His pa ren ts

, Pi pe r Part rid ge an d Dom in ic S c h w e i k l e , su ed Ell is on , th eCh ie f of Po li ce, an d th e Ci ty of Ben to n un de r 42 U.S.C. § 19 83 an d Ark an sa s la w.

The d i s t r i ct co ur t gr an te d qu al ifi ed im m un it y to th e of

fic ers , an d jud gm en t on th e pl ead in gs . Part rid ge an d S ch weik le ap pe al . Havi ng juri sd ic ti on un de r 28 U.S.C. §

12 91 , th is co ur t re ve rs es in pa rt, a ffi rm s i n p art , and rem an ds

.

I.

On Octo be r 17

, 20 16

, Keag an walk ed in to th e woo ds wit h a gu n. His m ot he r

cal le d 91 1. Sh e sa id he in ge st ed co ug h syrup an d po ss ib ly m ari juan a, was de pr es se d

aft er b ei ng su sp en de d fro m sc ho ol earl ie r th at m or ni ng , an d th reat en ed to sh oo t

hi m se lf. Sh e sa id he was no t g oi ng to hu rt a nyon e b ut hi m se lf. Sh e rep eat ed th es e

f a c t s t o th e fir st of

fic er on th e sc en e, ex pl ai ni ng th at Keag an was su ic id al

, walk e d

in to th e woo ds wit h a gu n, an d (s he be li ev ed ) was go in g t o t ry to hu rt h im se lf.

Ell is on was di sp at ch ed to he lp wit h th e se arch

. Usi ng a po li ce do g, he fou nd

Keag an st an di ng 45 feet away on a riv erb an k. Ell is on to ld Keag an to sh ow hi s ha nd s. Keag an tu rn ed sl ig ht ly to hi s rig ht

. Ell is on sa w a gu n in Keag an ’s rig ht ha nd

, dr ew

hi s g u n , an d or de red Keag an to dr op th e gu n. W it ho ut sp eak in g, Keag an in st ead

r a i s ed th e gu n to hi s rig ht te m pl e. Ell is on co m

m an de d Keag an to dr op th e gu n

“ se ve ral ti m es .” Keag an rem ai ne d s i l e n t

. As Keag an be ga n m ov in g th e gu n away

fro m hi s h ead , Elli so n fi red th ree s ho ts . Two hi t Kea ga n, k il li ng hi m

.

Part rid ge an d Sch weik le su ed se ve ral of fic ers in th ei r in di vi du al cap aci ti es fo r

ex ces si ve fo rce an d de pr iv at io n of th e rig ht to a fam il ia l rel at io ns hi p. The y al so m ad e

rel at ed Mon el l cl ai m s ag ai ns t th e of fic ers in th ei r of

fic ia l c a pa ci ti es an d th e Ci ty,

in cl ud in g fai lu re to tra i n an d fai lu re to ad eq ua te ly in ve st ig at e po li ce m is co nd uc t.

The y a ll eg ed as sa ul t an d ba tt ery un de r st at e la w. The di st ric t co ur t gr an te d th e

de fen da nt s jud gm en t on th e pl ead in gs

. It fo un d Ell is on ’s us e of fo rce was no t

co ns ti tu ti on al ly ex ces si ve , warra nt in g qu al ifi ed im m un it y on th e in di vi du al -cap aci ty

cl ai m s. It di sm is se d th e Mon e l l cl ai m s fo r la ck of an un de rlyin g co ns ti tu ti on al

-2

-vi ol at io n. It de cl in ed to ex erci se su pp le m en ta l juri sd ic ti on ov er th e st at e-l aw cl ai m s.

Part rid ge an d S ch weik le ap pe al , arg ui ng th ey su ffi ci en tl y

pl ed ex ces si ve for ce.

II.

Thi s co ur t rev ie ws de no vo a jud gm en t on th e pl ead in gs , acce pt in g as tru e th e

fact s in th e co m

pl ai nt an d dr awin g al l reas on ab le in fere nc es in fav or of th e

no nm ov in g pa rty. Levi tt v. Mer ck & Co

. , 91 4 F

. 3 d 11 69

, 11 71 (8 th Ci r. 20 19 ).

Ju dg m e nt on th e pl ead in gs “ sh ou ld be gr an te d on ly if th e m ov in g pa rty ha s cl earl y

de m on st rat ed th at no m at eri al is su e of fact rem ai ns an d th e m ov in g par ty is en ti tl ed

to jud gm en t as a m a t t e r of la w.” Wha tl ey v. Ca na di an Pac

. Ry.

, 90 4 F.3 d 61 4,

61 7– 18 (8t h C ir. 2 01 8)

.

In a § 1 9 8 3 a c ti on , qu al ifi ed im m un it y sh ie ld s go ve rn m en t of fic ia ls fro m

li ab il it y “ whe n th ei r co nd u c t ‘doe s no t vi ol at e cl earl y es ta bl is he d st at ut or y or

co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s of whi ch a reas on ab le pe rs on wou ld ha ve kn own .’ ” Mo rg an v.

Ro bi ns on , 92 0 F.3 d 52 1, 52 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 19 ) (en ba nc ), qu ot in g Pea rs on v. Ca ll ah an , 55 5 U.S. 2 23 , 23 1 (2 00 9) . To ov erco m e q ua li fie d i m m un it y at th e p le ad in gs st ag e,

a pl ai nt iff m

us t “ pl ead [] fact s sh owi ng (1 ) th at th e of fic i a l v io la te d a st at ut or y or

co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht

, an d (2 ) th at th e rig ht was ‘clear ly es ta bl is he d’ at th e ti m e of th e

ch al le ng ed co nd uc t.” As hcr of t v. al -Ki dd

, 56 3 U.S. 73 1, 73 5 (2 01 1)

, qu ot in g Ha rl ow

v. Fi tz ge ra ld , 45 7 U.S. 8 00 , 81 8 (1 98 2)

.

A.

Thi s ap pe al tu rn s on th e cl ai m th at Ell is on vi ol at ed Keag an ’s Fo ur th

A men dm en t rig ht to be free fro m ex ces si ve fo rce. The ke y is whe th er El l i s o n ’s

act io ns “we r e o bjec ti ve ly reas on ab le in li gh t of th e fact s an d ci rcu m st an ces

co nf ro nt in g hi m .” Ro

ge rs v. Ki ng , 88 5 F.3 d 11 18

, 11 21 (8 th Ci r. 20 18 ). Object iv e

reas on ab le ne ss is “

jud ge d fro m th e pe rs pe ct iv e of a reas on ab le of fic er on th e sc en e,”

-3

-in li gh t of “ th e fact s an d ci rcu m st an ces of each pa rti cu la r cas e, in cl ud in g th e se ve rit y

of th e cri m e at is su e, whe th er t he su sp ect po se s an im m ed ia te th reat to th e sa fet y of

th e of fic ers or ot he rs , an d whe th er he is act iv el y res is ti ng arre st or at te m pt in g to

ev ad e arre st by fli gh t.” Ki se la v. Hug hes

, 13 8 S. Ct

. 11 48

, 11 52 (2 01 8) (p er cu ria m ),

qu ot in g Gra ha m v. Co nno r , 49 0 U.S. 38 6, 39 6 (1 98 9)

. “ It is reas on ab le fo r an

of fic er to us e de ad ly fo rce if h e h as pr ob ab le cau se to be li ev e th at a su sp ect po se s a

th reat of se rio us ph y si cal ha rm to th e of fic er or ot he rs .” Ro

ge rs , 88 5 F .3d at 11 21

.

“ Bu t whe re a pe rs on ‘pos es no im m ed ia te th reat to th e of

fic er an d no th reat to ot he rs ,’

de ad ly fo rce is no t j us ti fie d.” El li so n v. Lesh er , 79 6 F.3d 91 0, 91 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 15 ),

qu ot in g Tennes se e v. Gar ner , 47 1 U.S. 1 , 11 (19 85 ).

Keag an was n ot su sp ect ed of a cri m e. He was n ot act iv el y res is ti ng arre st or

at te m pt in g to fle e. He was , ho wev er, arm ed

, su i c i d a l

, an d un de r th e in flu en ce of

co ug h syrup an d po ss i b l y m ari juan a. W he th er a reas on ab le of fic er co ul d co nc lu de

he po se d an im m ed ia te th reat de pe nd s on th e ci rcu m st an ces at th e ti m e of th e

sh oo ti ng

. Tak in g t he fact s in th e co m pl ai nt as tru e, “ Keag an si m pl y be ga n to m ov e

th e gu n away fro m hi s hea d,” “ was sh ot as he be ga n to m ov e th e gu n away fro m hi s

he ad

, pe r Ell is on ’s or de rs to ‘dro p th e gu n,’” an d “ ne ve r po in te d th e gu n at th e

of fic ers .” On th es e fact s, no reas on ab le of fic er co ul d co nc lu de th at a co m pl ia nt

in di vi du al po se d an im m ed ia te th reat

. Se e Hen de rs on v. Ci ty of Wo od bu ry , 90 9 F.3 d

93 3, 93 9– 40 (8 th Ci r. 20 18 ) (rev ers in g gr an t of qu al ifi ed im m un it y whe re te st im on y

su pp or te d a fin di ng th at su sp ect was sh o t aft er su rren de rin g to po li ce); Divi si on of

Em p’ t Sec. v. Bo ar d of

Pol ic e Co m m ’r

s , 86 4 F.3 d 97 4, 97 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 17 ) (h ol di ng

bu rg la ry su sp ect s’ co m

pl ia nc e wit h offi cers ’ co m m an ds m ean t th ey di d no t po se an

im m ed ia te th reat to th e o ffi cers ).

The di st ric t co ur t co nc lu de d it wou ld ha ve “ be en ne arl y im po ss ib le fo r Ell is on

to te ll whe th e r K e ag an was m ov in g th e gu n away fro m hi s he ad to co m pl y wit h

Ell is on ’s or de r or if he was rep os it io ni ng th e gu n t o a i m it at th e of fic ers .” Se e

Her na nd ez v. Ja rm an , 34 0 F.3 d 61 7, 62 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 03 ) (“ The reas on ab le ne ss of [an

-4

-of

fic er’s] u se of de ad ly fo rce is jud ge d fr om th e p ers pe ct iv e of a reas on ab le of fic er

on th e sc en e, an d no t fro m th e un kn owa bl e in te nt io ns of th e vi ct im .” (in te rn al ci ta ti on

om it te d) ). Thi s co nc lu si on do es no t acce pt th e fact s in th e co m pl ai nt as tru e an d dr aw

al l re as on ab le in fere nc es in fav or of t he no nm ov in g p art y

.

Keag an ha d to m ov e th e gu n to co m pl y wit h Ell is on ’s c o mm an ds

. The

co m pl ai nt do es no t te ll th e di rect io n or sp ee d K e a g a n mov ed th e gu n, ho w far he

m ov ed it be fo re Ell is on sh ot hi m , or th e ti m in g of th e fact s. The co m pl ai nt do es no t

g i v e Ell is on ’s vi ews

. Se e Doo le y v. Thar p , 85 6 F.3 d 11 77

, 11 83 (8 th Ci r

. 2 0 1 7 )
(co ll ect in g cas es co nc lu di ng , on su m m ary jud gm en t, of

fic ers ’ b e l i e f

s th at su sp ect s

po se d se rio us th reat s jus ti fy in g de ad ly fo rce were reas on ab le

, ev en if m is ta ke n, ba se d

on pe rcep ti on s th at su sp ect s po in te d a gu n in th ei r di rect io n or to ok ot he r m en aci ng

act io n) ; Ro

ge rs , 88 5 F.3 d at 11 21 –2 2 (g ran ti ng qu al ifi ed im m un it y whe re reas on ab le

of fic er ha d pr ob ab le cau se to be li ev e su ic id al de fen da nt po se d th reat of se rio us ph y si cal ha rm whe n “ sh e rai se d th e gu n to [th e of fic er’s] sh in le ve l” ); Thom ps on v.

Hub ba rd

, 2 5 7 F

. 3d 89 6, 89 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 01 ) (co nc lu di ng , on su m m ary jud gm en t,

of fic er’s us e of de ad ly fo rce was ob jecti ve ly reas on ab le whe re th e of fic er sa id a

fle ei ng arm ed -ro bb ery su sp ect “ tu rn ed an d lo ok ed at hi m whi le th e two were in cl os e

pr ox im it y an d m ov ed as th ou gh reac hi ng fo r a weap on ” )

. B a s ed on th e co m pl ai nt

, Keag an m ay ha ve sl owl y lo wered th e gu n whi le po in ti ng it in th e op po si te di rect io n

of Ell is on

. Thi s wou ld be “ so ob vi ou sl y an at te m pt to co mply wit h [Ell is on ’s]

co m m an ds to dr op th e [g un ] th at a reas on ab le of fic er wou ld ha ve kn own th at op en in g

fir e wou ld co ns ti t u t e e x c e s si ve fo rce.” Par tl ow v. St ad le r , 77 4 F.3 d 49 7, 50 3 (8 th

Ci r. 20 14 ). Se e Nea l v. Fi cca de nt i

, 89 5 F

. 3 d 57 6, 58 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 18 ) (d en y in g

qu al ifi ed im m

un it y whe re, alth ou gh su sp ect in it ia ll y fai le d to fo ll ow com m an ds

, he

was in fu ll co m

pl ia nc e at th e ti m e fo rce was us ed ); Bel l v. Ka ns as Ci ty Pol

ic e Dep ’t

, 63 5 F.3 d 34 6, 34 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (d en y in g qu al ifi ed im m un it y whe re, un de r th e pl ai nt iff ’s v e r s i o n o f th e fact s, a reas on ab le of fic er wou ld ha ve kn own he was

co m pl y in g wit h th e of

fic ers ’ o r de rs jus t be fo re be in g ta se red ). Bas ed on al l

reas on ab le in fere nc es , th is co ur t can no t co nc lu de Ell is on ’s act io ns were ob jecti ve ly

-5

-reas on ab le

. Se e Wi ls on v. Ci ty of Des Mo in es , 29 3 F.3 d 44 7, 45 2– 53 (8 th Ci r. 20 02 )
(fac tu al is su es ab ou t ho w su sp ect tu rn ed t o ward s of fic ers —wh et he r he tu rn ed in a

sh oo ti ng st an ce—

pr ecl ud ed qu al ifi ed im m

un it y on ex ces si ve -fo rce c la im ).

The di st ric t co ur t rel ie d on se ve ral s um m ary jud gm en t cas es , in cl ud in g

Gar cyz ns ki v. Bra ds ha w , 57 3 F.3 d 11 58 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 09 ). The re, th e Elev en th Ci rcu it

gr an te d qu al ifi ed im m

un it y to of

fic ers th at sh ot a su ic id al in di vi du al (in a car) who

refu se d to dr op hi s weap on , aft er he “ swu ng th e gu n fro m hi s he ad in th e di rect io n of

th e of fic ers .” Ga r c

y n z s k i

, 57 3 F.3 d at 11 68

. Tha t co ur t no te d— on su m m ary jud gm en t— th at ev en if Garcyzns ki di d no t po in t hi s gu n in th e of fic ers ’ di rect io n, hi s

refu sa l “ to co m

pl y wit h th e of

fic ers ’ rep eat ed co m

m an ds to dr op hi s gu n jus ti fie d th e

us e of de ad ly fo rce un de r th es e pa rti cu la r ci rcu m st an ces .” Id

. at 11 69

. Bas ed on th e

fact s pl ead ed (an d reas on ab le in fere nc es ) he re, a r e as on ab le of fic er wou ld ha ve

kn own th at Keag an was m ov in g hi s gu n in co mp li an ce wit h co m m an ds to dr op th e

gu n. Sh oo ti ng hi m un de r su ch ci rcu m st an ces wou ld co ns ti tu te ex ces si ve fo rce, ev en

th ou gh he was arm ed

. Se e Pere z v. Sus zc zy ns ki

, 80 9 F.3 d 12 1 3

, 1 2 2 0 (1 1t h Ci r.

20 16 ) (“ [T]he m ere pre se nc e of a gu n o r ot he r weap on is no t en ou gh to warran t t he

ex erci se of de ad ly fo rce an d sh ie ld an of fic er fro m su it

. W he re th e weap on was , wha t

type of weap on it was , an d wha t was ha pp en in g wit h t h e weap on are al l in qu iri es

cru ci al to th e reas on ab le ne ss de te rm in at io n.” ). Cf

. Cr ai gh ea d v. Lee

, 39 9 F.3 d 95 4,

96 1– 62 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ) (d en y in g qu al ifi ed im m un it y whe re of

fic er sh ot su sp ect

ho ld in g a gu n “ co nt in uo us ly ov er [h is ] he ad

, po in te d up ward ,” whi le st ru gg li ng wit h

an ot he r pe rs on ).

Keag an ’s rig ht to be free fro m ex ces si ve fo rce un de r th es e ci rcu m st an ces was

cl earl y es ta bl is he d in Octo be r 20 1 6

. Tak in g th e fact s in th e co m pl ai nt as tru e an d

dr awin g al l reas on ab le in f eren ces in Keag an ’s fav or , Ell is on sh ot a no n- res is ti ng ,

no n- fle e in g m in or as he m ov ed hi s gu n in co m pl ia nc e wit h co m

m an ds to dr op hi s

gu n. Und er th es e ci rcu m st an ces , no reas on ab le of fic er co ul d co nc lu de Keag an po se d

an im m ed ia te th reat of se rio us ph y si cal ha rm

. The la w w a s “s u f f ic ie nt ly cl ear th at

-6

-ev ery reas on ab le of fic ia l wou l d u n d e rs ta nd th at ” sh oo ti ng an in di vi du al in th es e

c i r c u ms t an ces is un la wfu l. Dis tr ic t of Co lu m bi a v. Wes by

, 13 8 S. Ct

. 57 7, 58 9
(2 01 8) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s an d ci ta ti on om it te d)

. Se e Hen de rs on , 90 9 F.3 d at

94 0 (h ol di ng it was cl earl y es ta bl is he d in 20 12 th at sh oo ti ng a su sp ect who

su rren de red to po li ce an d di d no t po se a th reat of se rio us ha rm co ns ti tu te d ex ces si ve

fo rce) ; Wea lo t v. Br oo ks

, 86 5 F.3 d 1 1 1 9

, 1 1 2 6– 27 (8 th Ci r. 20 17 ) (n ot in g it was

cl earl y es ta bl is h e d in 20 13 th at sh oo ti ng a su sp ect at te m pt in g to su rren de r was no t

ob jecti ve ly rea so na bl e); Cr ai gh ea d , 3 99 F.3 d at 96 2– 6 3 ( c o ll ect in g cas es th at “ pu t

of fic ers on no ti ce

. . . th at th ey m ay no t us e de ad ly fo rce u nd er ci rcu m st an ces in

whi ch th ey s h o u l d k n o w th at th e su sp ect do es no t pr es en t an im m ed ia te th reat of

se rio us ph y si cal in

jury or ha rm ”).

Ell is on co nt en ds th at Par tl ow wou ld “ gi ve a reas on ab le of fic er th e im

pr es si on

th at sh oo ti ng K e a g a n was co ns ti tu ti on al .” Thi s is wro ng

. The of fic ers in Par tl ow

sa w a su ic id al su sp ect “ in th e d a r k o f n i gh t” fo rcef ul ly pu sh op en an ap art m en tbu il di ng do or “ wit h a sh ot gu n in hi s ha nd

, ” a n d o n l y “ se co nd s pa ss ed ” un ti l th ey

op en ed fir e. Par tl

ow , 77 4 F.3 d at 50 2. Befo re sh oo ti ng , th e of fic ers or de red th e

su sp ect to dr op th e gu n, an d “ th ey ob se rv ed [h im ] m ov e th e sh ot g u n i n s u c h a way

th at th e of

fic ers be li ev ed th at [h e] was ai m in g th e ba rrel of th e sh ot gu n at th em .” Id

. Bas ed on th e fact s in th e su m m ary jud gm en t reco rd

, th is co ur t co nc lu de d th e of fic ers

ha d a reas on ab le be li ef, ev en if m is ta ke n, th at th e su sp ect was ai m in g at th em

. Id

. at

50 3. Here, ho wev er, th e co m pl ai nt do es no t al le ge th at Keag an m ov ed to ai m hi s gu n

at Ell is on

. Nor is th ere an al le ga ti on th a t El l i s on be li ev ed Keag an to be m ov in g to

ai m at hi m

. Par tl ow is co ns is te nt wit h th e cl earl y es ta bl is he d la w th at it is ob jecti ve ly

un reas on ab le to sh oo t an in di vi du al who do es no t po se an im m ed ia t e t h r eat to th e

of fic ers or ot he rs

. Se e id

. at 50 2– 03 (ru li ng ou t po ss ib il it y th at su sp ect ’s m ov em en t

was ob vi ou s at te m

pt to co m pl y wit h o ffi cers ’ co m

m an ds ).

Bec au se th is co ur t rev ers es th e jud gm en t o n th e pl ead in gs on th e ex ces si ve

fo rce cl ai m , th e di sm is sa l of th e rel at ed Mo n e l l cl ai m s is rev ers ed as well

. Se e

-7

-W

e a l o t

, 86 5 F.3 d at 11 28 (n ot in g th e ge ne ral ru le th at “ fo r m un ic ip al li ab il it y t o

at ta ch

, in di vi du al li ab il it y fir st m us t be fo un d on an un de rlyin g su bs ta nt iv e cl ai m ”).

In li gh t of th is co ur t rest or in g fed eral cl ai m s, the di sm is sa l of Partr id ge ’s an d

Sch weik le ’s st at e-l aw cl ai m s i s v acat ed

.

B.

Part rid ge an d Sch weik le cl ai m Ell is on ’s un jus ti fie d sh o o t i n g vi ol at ed th ei r

Fo ur te en th Am en dm en t du e pr oc es s rig ht s to a f a m il ia l rel at io ns hi p. True

, th e

“ pr act ic al effe ct ” of a po li ce of fic er ki ll in g a m in or ch il d is “ to de ny th e [p aren ts ] th e

fu nd am en ta l rig ht to rai se [th ei r] so n.” M a t t i s v

. S chna rr , 50 2 F.2 d 58 8, 59 5 (8 th

Ci r. 19 74 ). The Sc hn ar r cas e do es no t ad dr es s a cl ai m fo r da m ag es un de r § 19 83 in

th es e ci rcu m st an ces

. 1

Pl ead in g a p l a u s ib le fam il ia l-r el at io ns hi p cl ai m un de r § 19 83 req ui res an

al le ga ti on th at th e st at e act io n was in te nt io na ll y di rect ed at th e fam il ia l rel at io ns hi p.

Se e Ha rp ol

e v. Ar ka ns as Dep ’t of Hum an Ser vs

. , 82 0 F.2 d 92 3, 92 7– 2 8 ( 8 t h Ci r.

19 87 ) (“ Pro te ct in g fam il ia l rel at io ns hi ps do es no t ne ces sa ril y en ta il co m pe ns at in g

rel at iv es who su ffer a lo ss as a res ul t of wro ng fu l st at e co nd uc t, es pe ci al ly whe n th e

lo ss is an in di rect res ul t of th at co nd uc t.”)

, fa vo ra bl y ci ti ng Ort

iz v. Bur go s , 80 7 F.2 d

6, 8– 9 (1 st Ci r. 19 86 ) (n ot in g Sup rem e Co ur t su bs ta nt iv e-d ue -p ro ces s cas es pr ot ect

th e rig ht to m ak e cer ta in pri va te fam il y de ci si on s, s uc h a s whet he r to be ar chi ld ren ,

an d de al wit h go ve rn m en ta l at te m pt s to di rect ly affe ct th e pa ren t-c hi ld rel at io ns hi p,

At is su e in Sc hn ar r was t h e p l ai nt iff ’s st an di ng to br in g a co ns ti tu ti on al 1

ch al le ng e fo r a de cl arat or y jud gm en t ag ai ns t Mi ss ou ri st at ut es au th or iz in g de ad ly

f o r c e f o r so m e arre st s. Se e Schn ar r , 50 2 F.2 d at 59 3– 95

. The Su pr em e Co ur t i n Ash cr of t v. Mat ti s , 43 1 U.S. 17 1, 17 2– 73 (1 97 7)

, ab ro ga t e d Sc hn ar r ’s st an di ng ho ld in g, ba se d on a la ck of “ pr es en t rig ht ” at st ak e. Se e Fr os t v. Si ou x Ci ty

, 92 0 F.3 d

11 58 , 11 62 (8t h C ir. 2 01 9) (rec og ni zi ng th e ab ro ga ti on ).

-8

-su ch as te rm in at in g pa ren ta l rig ht s, bu t “ [t]he Co ur t ha s ne ve r he ld th at go ve rn m en ta l

ac t i on th at affe ct s th e pa ren ta l rel at io ns hi p on ly in ci de nt al ly

. . . is su sc ep ti bl e to

ch al le ng e fo r a vi ol at io n of du e pr oc es s” ). Se e al so Rea so no ver v. St

. Loui s Ct y. , 44 7

F

. 3 d 5 6 9, 58 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ) (rejec ti ng fam il ia l-a ss oc ia ti on cl ai m whe re pl ai nt i f f

“ pr es en t[e d] no ev i d en ce th at de fen da nt s ha d an in te nt to in te rfer e wit h th e

rel at io ns hi p be twee n [p la in ti ff] an d he r da ug ht er”) ; Si ng le to n v. Cec il

, 17 6 F.3 d 41 9,

42 3 (8 th Ci r. 19 99 ) (en ba nc ), af f’g in pe r t i n e nt pa rt 13 3 F.3 d 63 1, 63 5 (8 th Ci r.

19 98 ) (“ A de fen da nt can be he ld li ab le fo r vi ol at in g a rig ht of in ti m at e a s s o c i a t io n

o nl y if th e pl ai nt iff sh ows an in te nt to in te rfer e wit h th e rel at io ns hi p.” ), q u o t i n g

Mo rf in v. Alb uq uer qu e Pub . Sch. , 90 6 F .2d 14 34 , 14 40 (10 th Cir . 19 90 ).

Her e , Part rid ge an d Sch weik le di d no t al le ge in th ei r co m pl ai nt

, or arg ue on

ap pe al

, th at Ell is on ’s sh oo ti ng was d ire ct ed at th ei r rel at io ns hi p with Keag an

. Thi s

fo recl os es th ei r cl ai m s. Acco rd Gor m an v. Rens se la er Ct y. , 91 0 F.3 d 40

, 47 –4 8 (2 d

Ci r. 20 18 ) (“ Bas ed on th e Su pr em e Co ur t’s di rect iv e th at on ly de li be rat e co nd uc t

im pl ic at es du e pr oc es s, we joi n th e co ns en su s vi ew of th e ci rcu it co ur ts : a cl ai m un de r

th e Due Pro ces s Cl au se fo r in fri ng em en t of th e rig ht to fam il ia l as so ci at io ns req ui res

th e al le ga ti on th at st at e act io n was spe ci fic al ly in te nd ed to in te rfer e wit h th e fam il y

rel at io ns hi p.” ), ci ti ng Dan ie ls v. Wi ll ia m s , 47 4 U.S. 32 7, 33 1 (1 98 6) (“ His to ric al ly,

th [e] gu aran te e of du e pr oc es s ha s be en ap pl ie d to de li be ra te de ci si on s of go ve rn m en t

of fic ia ls to de pr iv e a pe rs on of li fe, l i b e r t y, o r pr op ert y .”); Rus s v. Wa tt s , 4 14 F.3 d

7 8 3

, 7 89 –9 0 (7 th Ci r. 20 05 ) (en ba nc ) (co ll ect in g cas es ) (“ Und er an y st an d a r d

, fin di ng a c on st it ut io na l vi ol at io n ba se d on of fic ia l act io ns th at were no t di rect ed at

th e pa ren t-c hi ld rel at io ns hi p wou ld st ret ch th e co nc ep t of du e pr oc es s far be y on d th e

gu id in g pr in ci pl es se t fo rth by th e Su pr em e Co ur t.”)

. But se e Sm it h v. Ci ty of

F o n t an a , 8 18 F.2 d 14 11 , 1 42 0 n.1 2 (9 th Ci r. 19 87 ) (ref us in g to ad op t req ui re men t

th at pl ai nt iff al le ge st at e of fic ia l in te nt io na l l y t arg et ed th e fam il ia l rel at io ns hi p to

st at e a du e pr oc es s v io la ti on un de r § 19 83 ), ov er ru le d on ot he r gr ou nd s by

Ho dg er s- Durg in v. de la V

in a , 19 9 F .3d 10 37 , 10 41 n.1 (9t h C ir. 1 99 9) (en ba nc ).

-9

-The jud gm en t on th e pl ead in gs on th e fam il ia l-r el at io ns hi p cl ai m s is affi rm ed

.

Se e Tony Al

am o Chr is ti an Mi ni

st ri es v. Sel ig

, 66 4 F.3 d 12 45

, 12 48 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 )
(“ W e m ay affi rm ba se d on an y gr ou nd s su pp or te d by th e reco rd .”). Bec au se Part rid ge

an d Sch weik le fai le d to al le ge a F o u rte en th Am en dm en t vi ol at io n, th ei r rel at ed

Mon el l cl ai m s were pr op erl y di sm is se d. Se e Ro ge rs , 88 5 F.3 d at 11 22 (“A su it

ag ai ns t a pu bl ic of

fic ia l in hi s of

fic ia l cap aci ty is act ua ll y a su it ag ai ns t th e en ti ty fo r

whi ch th e of

fic i a l i s a n ag en t.”) ; Mo or e v. Ci ty of Des lo ge , 6 47 F.3 d 84 1, 84 9 (8 th

Ci r. 20 11 ) (“ Thi s ci rcu it ha s co ns is te nt ly reco gn iz ed a ge ne ral ru le th at

, in or de r fo r

m un ic ip al li ab il it y to at ta ch

, in di vi du al li ab il it y fir st m us t be fo un d on an un de rlyin g

su bs ta nt iv e cl ai m .”).

* * * * * * *

Th e ju dg m en t is rev ers ed in pa rt, affi rm ed in pa rt, an d rem an de d fo r

pr oc eed in gs co ns is te nt wit h t hi s o pi ni on

.

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

-1 0-