United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 18-1803

___________________________

Piper Partridge, Individually as mother and next of kin to Keagan Schweikle and

as Special Administratrix of the Estate of Keagan Schweikle; Dominic Schweikle,

Individually as father and next of kin to Keagan Schweikle

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiffs - Appellants

v.

City of Benton, Arkansas; Kyle Ellison, Individually and as Employee of City of

Benton, Arkansas; Kirk Lane, Individually and as Employee of City of Benton,

Arkansas; JohnDoes, 1-20,Individuallyand asEmployees ofCityofBenton,Arkansas

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock

____________

Submitted: March 7, 2019

Filed: July 3, 2019

____________

Before BENTON, MELLOY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

____________

BENTON, Circuit Judge.

Benton police officer Kyle Ellison shot and killed 17-year-old Keagan

Schweikle. His parents, Piper Partridge and Dominic Schweikle, sued Ellison, the
Chief of Police, and the City of Benton under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Arkansas law. 

The district court granted qualified immunity to the officers, and judgment on the

pleadings. Partridge and Schweikle appeal. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §

1291, this court reverses in part, affirms in part, and remands. 

I.

On October 17, 2016, Keagan walked into the woods with a gun. His mother

called 911. She said he ingested cough syrup and possibly marijuana, was depressed

after being suspended from school earlier that morning, and threatened to shoot

himself. She said he was not going to hurt anyone but himself. She repeated these

facts to the first officer on the scene, explaining that Keagan was suicidal, walked

into the woods with a gun, and (she believed) was going to try to hurt himself. 

Ellison was dispatched to help with the search. Using a police dog, he found

Keagan standing 45 feet away on a riverbank. Ellison told Keagan to show his hands. 

Keagan turned slightly to his right. Ellison saw a gun in Keagan’s right hand, drew

his gun, and ordered Keagan to drop the gun. Without speaking, Keagan instead

raised the gun to his right temple. Ellison commanded Keagan to drop the gun

“several times.” Keagan remained silent. As Keagan began moving the gun away

from his head, Ellison fired three shots. Two hit Keagan, killing him. 

Partridge and Schweikle sued several officersin their individual capacities for

excessive force and deprivation of the right to a familial relationship. They also made

related Monell claims against the officers in their official capacities and the City,

including failure to train and failure to adequately investigate police misconduct. 

They alleged assault and battery under state law. The district court granted the

defendants judgment on the pleadings. It found Ellison’s use of force was not

constitutionally excessive, warranting qualified immunity on the individual-capacity

claims. It dismissed the Monell claims for lack of an underlying constitutional

-2-
violation. It declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims. 

Partridge and Schweikle appeal, arguing they sufficiently pled excessive force. 

II.

This court reviews de novo a judgment on the pleadings, accepting as true the

facts in the complaint and drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the

nonmoving party. Levitt v. Merck & Co., 914 F.3d 1169, 1171 (8th Cir. 2019). 

Judgment on the pleadings “should be granted only if the moving party has clearly

demonstrated that no material issue of fact remains and the moving party is entitled

to judgment as a matter of law.” Whatley v. Canadian Pac. Ry., 904 F.3d 614,

617–18 (8th Cir. 2018). 

In a § 1983 action, qualified immunity shields government officials from

liability “when their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or

constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” Morgan v.

Robinson, 920 F.3d 521, 523 (8thCir. 2019) (en banc), quoting Pearson v. Callahan,

555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009). To overcome qualified immunity at the pleadings stage,

a plaintiff must “plead[] facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or

constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the

challenged conduct.” Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 735 (2011), quotingHarlow

v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). 

A.

This appeal turns on the claim that Ellison violated Keagan’s Fourth

Amendment right to be free from excessive force. The key is whether Ellison’s

actions “were objectively reasonable in light of the facts and circumstances

confronting him.” Rogers v. King, 885 F.3d 1118, 1121 (8th Cir. 2018). Objective

reasonableness is “judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene,”

-3-
in light of “the facts and circumstances of each particular case, including the severity

of the crime at issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of

the officers or others, and whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to

evade arrest by flight.” Kisela v. Hughes, 138 S. Ct. 1148, 1152 (2018) (per curiam),

quoting Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 396 (1989). “It is reasonable for an

officer to use deadly force if he has probable cause to believe that a suspect poses a

threat of serious physical harm to the officer or others.” Rogers, 885 F.3d at 1121. 

“But where a person ‘poses no immediate threat to the officer and no threat to others,’

deadly force is not justified.” Ellison v. Lesher, 796 F.3d 910, 916 (8th Cir. 2015),

quoting Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1, 11 (1985).

Keagan was not suspected of a crime. He was not actively resisting arrest or

attempting to flee. He was, however, armed, suicidal, and under the influence of

cough syrup and possibly marijuana. Whether a reasonable officer could conclude

he posed an immediate threat depends on the circumstances at the time of the

shooting. Taking the facts in the complaint as true, “Keagan simply began to move

the gun away from his head,” “was shot as he began to move the gun away from his

head, per Ellison’s orders to ‘drop the gun,’” and “never pointed the gun at the

officers.” On these facts, no reasonable officer could conclude that a compliant

individual posed an immediate threat. See Henderson v. City of Woodbury, 909 F.3d

933, 939–40 (8th Cir. 2018) (reversing grant of qualified immunity where testimony

supported a finding that suspect was shot after surrendering to police); Division of

Emp’t Sec. v. Board of Police Comm’rs, 864 F.3d 974, 979 (8th Cir. 2017) (holding

burglary suspects’ compliance with officers’ commands meant they did not pose an

immediate threat to the officers).

The district court concluded it would have “been nearly impossible for Ellison

to tell whether Keagan was moving the gun away from his head to comply with

Ellison’s order or if he was repositioning the gun to aim it at the officers.” See

Hernandez v. Jarman, 340 F.3d 617, 624 (8thCir. 2003) (“The reasonableness of[an

-4-
officer’s] use of deadly force is judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer

on the scene, and not fromthe unknowable intentions of the victim.” (internal citation

omitted)). This conclusion does not accept the facts in the complaint astrue and draw

all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. 

Keagan had to move the gun to comply with Ellison’s commands. The

complaint does not tell the direction or speed Keagan moved the gun, how far he

moved it before Ellison shot him, or the timing of the facts. The complaint does not

give Ellison’s views. See Dooley v. Tharp, 856 F.3d 1177, 1183 (8th Cir. 2017)

(collecting cases concluding, on summary judgment, officers’ beliefs that suspects

posed seriousthreats justifying deadly force were reasonable, even if mistaken, based

on perceptions that suspects pointed a gun in their direction or took other menacing

action); Rogers, 885 F.3d at 1121–22 (granting qualified immunity where reasonable

officer had probable cause to believe suicidal defendant posed threat of serious

physical harm when “she raised the gun to [the officer’s] shin level”); Thompson v.

Hubbard, 257 F.3d 896, 899 (8th Cir. 2001) (concluding, on summary judgment,

officer’s use of deadly force was objectively reasonable where the officer said a

fleeing armed-robbery suspect “turned and looked at him while the two were in close

proximity and moved as though reaching for a weapon”). Based on the complaint,

Keagan may have slowly lowered the gun while pointing it in the opposite direction

of Ellison. This would be “so obviously an attempt to comply with [Ellison’s]

commandsto drop the [gun] that a reasonable officer would have known that opening

fire would constitute excessive force.” Partlow v. Stadler, 774 F.3d 497, 503 (8th

Cir. 2014). See Neal v. Ficcadenti, 895 F.3d 576, 581 (8th Cir. 2018) (denying

qualified immunity where, although suspect initially failed to follow commands, he

was in full compliance at the time force was used); Bell v. Kansas City Police Dep’t,

635 F.3d 346, 347 (8th Cir. 2011) (denying qualified immunity where, under the

plaintiff’s version of the facts, a reasonable officer would have known he was

complying with the officers’ orders just before being tasered). Based on all

reasonable inferences, this court cannot conclude Ellison’s actions were objectively

-5-
reasonable. See Wilson v. City of Des Moines, 293 F.3d 447, 452–53 (8th Cir. 2002)

(factual issues about how suspect turned towards officers—whether he turned in a

shooting stance—precluded qualified immunity on excessive-force claim).

The district court relied on several summary judgment cases, including

Garcyznski v. Bradshaw, 573 F.3d 1158 (11th Cir. 2009). There, the EleventhCircuit

granted qualified immunity to officers that shot a suicidal individual (in a car) who

refused to drop his weapon, after he “swung the gun from his head in the direction of

the officers.” Garcynzski, 573 F.3d at 1168. That court noted—on summary

judgment—that even if Garcyznski did not point his gun in the officers’ direction, his

refusal “to comply with the officers’ repeated commandsto drop his gun justified the

use of deadly force under these particular circumstances.” Id. at 1169. Based on the

facts pleaded (and reasonable inferences) here, a reasonable officer would have

known that Keagan was moving his gun in compliance with commands to drop the

gun. Shooting him under such circumstances would constitute excessive force, even

though he was armed. See Perez v. Suszczynski, 809 F.3d 1213, 1220 (11th Cir.

2016) (“[T]he mere presence of a gun or other weapon is not enough to warrant the

exercise of deadly force and shield an officer from suit. Where the weapon was, what

type of weapon it was, and what was happening with the weapon are all inquiries

crucial to the reasonableness determination.”). Cf. Craighead v. Lee, 399 F.3d 954,

961–62 (8th Cir. 2005) (denying qualified immunity where officer shot suspect

holding a gun “continuously over [his] head, pointed upward,” while struggling with

another person).

Keagan’s right to be free from excessive force under these circumstances was

clearly established in October 2016. Taking the facts in the complaint as true and

drawing all reasonable inferences in Keagan’s favor, Ellison shot a non-resisting,

non-fleeing minor as he moved his gun in compliance with commands to drop his

gun. Under these circumstances, no reasonable officer could conclude Keagan posed

an immediate threat of serious physical harm. The law was “sufficiently clear that

-6-
every reasonable official would understand that” shooting an individual in these

circumstances is unlawful. District of Columbia v. Wesby, 138 S. Ct. 577, 589

(2018) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). See Henderson, 909 F.3d at

940 (holding it was clearly established in 2012 that shooting a suspect who

surrendered to police and did not pose a threat of serious harm constituted excessive

force); Wealot v. Brooks, 865 F.3d 1119, 1126–27 (8th Cir. 2017) (noting it was

clearly established in 2013 that shooting a suspect attempting to surrender was not

objectively reasonable); Craighead, 399 F.3d at 962–63 (collecting cases that “put

officers on notice . . . that they may not use deadly force under circumstances in

which they should know that the suspect does not present an immediate threat of

serious physical injury or harm”).

Ellison contends that Partlow would “give a reasonable officer the impression

that shooting Keagan was constitutional.” This is wrong. The officers in Partlow

saw a suicidal suspect “in the dark of night” forcefully push open an apartmentbuilding door “with a shotgun in his hand,” and only “seconds passed” until they

opened fire. Partlow, 774 F.3d at 502. Before shooting, the officers ordered the

suspect to drop the gun, and “they observed [him] move the shotgun in such a way

that the officers believed that [he] was aiming the barrel of the shotgun at them.” Id. 

Based on the facts in the summary judgment record, this court concluded the officers

had a reasonable belief, even if mistaken, that the suspect was aiming at them. Id. at

503. Here, however, the complaint does not allege that Keagan moved to aim his gun

at Ellison. Nor is there an allegation that Ellison believed Keagan to be moving to

aim at him. Partlow is consistent with the clearly established law that it is objectively

unreasonable to shoot an individual who does not pose an immediate threat to the

officers or others. See id. at 502–03 (ruling out possibility that suspect’s movement

was obvious attempt to comply with officers’ commands).

Because this court reverses the judgment on the pleadings on the excessive

force claim, the dismissal of the related Monell claims is reversed as well. See

-7-
Wealot, 865 F.3d at 1128 (noting the general rule that “for municipal liability to

attach, individual liability first must be found on an underlying substantive claim”). 

In light of this court restoring federal claims, the dismissal of Partridge’s and

Schweikle’s state-law claims is vacated.

B.

Partridge and Schweikle claim Ellison’s unjustified shooting violated their

Fourteenth Amendment due process rights to a familial relationship. True, the

“practical effect” of a police officer killing a minor child is “to deny the [parents] the

fundamental right to raise [their] son.” Mattis v. Schnarr, 502 F.2d 588, 595 (8th

Cir. 1974). The Schnarr case does not address a claim for damages under § 1983 in

these circumstances. 

1

Pleading a plausible familial-relationship claim under § 1983 requires an

allegation that the state action was intentionally directed at the familial relationship. 

See Harpole v. Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs., 820 F.2d 923, 927–28 (8th Cir.

1987) (“Protecting familial relationships does not necessarily entail compensating

relatives who suffer a loss as a result of wrongful state conduct, especially when the

lossis an indirect result of that conduct.”), favorably citing Ortiz v. Burgos, 807 F.2d

6, 8–9 (1st Cir. 1986) (noting Supreme Court substantive-due-process cases protect

the right to make certain private family decisions, such as whether to bear children,

and deal with governmental attempts to directly affect the parent-child relationship,

At issue in Schnarr was the plaintiff’s standing to bring a constitutional 1

challenge for a declaratory judgment against Missouri statutes authorizing deadly

force for some arrests. See Schnarr, 502 F.2d at 593–95. The Supreme Court in

Ashcroft v. Mattis, 431 U.S. 171, 172–73 (1977), abrogated Schnarr’s standing

holding, based on a lack of “present right” atstake. See Frost v. Sioux City, 920 F.3d

1158, 1162 (8th Cir. 2019) (recognizing the abrogation). 

-8-
such asterminating parental rights, but “[t]he Court has never held that governmental

action that affects the parental relationship only incidentally . . . is susceptible to

challenge for a violation of due process”). See also Reasonover v. St. Louis Cty., 447

F.3d 569, 585 (8th Cir. 2006) (rejecting familial-association claim where plaintiff

“present[ed] no evidence that defendants had an intent to interfere with the

relationship between [plaintiff] and her daughter”); Singleton v. Cecil, 176 F.3d 419,

423 (8th Cir. 1999) (en banc), aff’g in pertinent part 133 F.3d 631, 635 (8th Cir.

1998) (“A defendant can be held liable for violating a right of intimate association

only if the plaintiff shows an intent to interfere with the relationship.”), quoting

Morfin v. Albuquerque Pub. Sch., 906 F.2d 1434, 1440 (10th Cir. 1990). 

Here, Partridge and Schweikle did not allege in their complaint, or argue on

appeal, that Ellison’s shooting was directed at their relationship with Keagan. This

forecloses their claims. Accord Gorman v. Rensselaer Cty., 910 F.3d 40, 47–48 (2d

Cir. 2018) (“Based on the Supreme Court’s directive that only deliberate conduct

implicates due process, we join the consensus view ofthe circuit courts: a claimunder

the Due Process Clause for infringement of the right to familial associations requires

the allegation that state action was specifically intended to interfere with the family

relationship.”), citing Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 331 (1986) (“Historically,

th[e] guarantee of due process has been applied to deliberate decisions of government

officials to deprive a person of life, liberty, or property.”); Russ v. Watts, 414 F.3d

783, 789–90 (7th Cir. 2005) (en banc) (collecting cases) (“Under any standard,

finding a constitutional violation based on official actions that were not directed at

the parent-child relationship would stretch the concept of due process far beyond the

guiding principles set forth by the Supreme Court.”). But see Smith v. City of

Fontana, 818 F.2d 1411, 1420 n.12 (9th Cir. 1987) (refusing to adopt requirement

that plaintiff allege state official intentionally targeted the familial relationship to

state a due process violation under § 1983), overruled on other grounds by

Hodgers-Durgin v. de la Vina, 199 F.3d 1037, 1041 n.1 (9th Cir. 1999) (en banc).

-9-
The judgment on the pleadings on the familial-relationship claims is affirmed. 

See Tony Alamo Christian Ministries v. Selig, 664 F.3d 1245, 1248 (8th Cir. 2012)

(“We may affirmbased on any grounds supported by the record.”). Because Partridge

and Schweikle failed to allege a Fourteenth Amendment violation, their related

Monell claims were properly dismissed. See Rogers, 885 F.3d at 1122 (“A suit

against a public official in his official capacity is actually a suit against the entity for

which the official is an agent.”); Moore v. City of Desloge, 647 F.3d 841, 849 (8th

Cir. 2011) (“This circuit has consistently recognized a general rule that, in order for

municipal liability to attach, individual liability first must be found on an underlying

substantive claim.”).

* * * * * * *

The judgment is reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded for

proceedings consistent with this opinion. 

______________________________

-10-