Opinion ID: 6318081
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Continued Shooting

Text: Finally, Plaintiffs argue that, even if the tasing and initial shooting were reasonable, Johns acted unreasonably by continuing to shoot at Palma with a second volley of shots. Once an officer eliminates the imminent threat, any continued use of force is unreasonable. See Dickerson, 101 F.3d at 1162 n.9; Margeson, 579 F. App’x at 471–72. Plaintiffs rely on Margeson to argue that shooting Palma nine times—including several shots after Palma fell to the ground—was unreasonable. As Plaintiffs note, the number of shots fired is certainly relevant, but it is not dispositive. Margeson, 579 F. App’x at 472. In Margeson, the officer shot the plaintiff forty-three times in multiple volleys. See id. Based on this fact alone, “a jury could reasonably infer that [the plaintiff] became incapacitated, and was therefore unable to pose a threat after having been shot with the first few bullets.” Id. A jury could make the same finding here; if Palma became incapacitated after the first round of shots, Johns had no reason to continue shooting. The parties dispute whether Johns subdued Palma after the first few gunshots. Johns claims that Palma “lunge[d]” at him after Palma bent forward in a “bear crawl” stance. (Johns Dep., R. 50-1, Page ID #860, ##862–63.) At this point Johns could clearly see both of Palma’s hands. But Salvatore disputes this description of events. He said that, after the first shots, Palma “didn’t keep approaching. He was still standing there.” (S. Palma Dep., R. 50-5, Page ID #1042.) Similarly, the autopsy report indicates that Palma did not get back up and move towards No. 21-3315 Palma, et al. v. Johns, et al. Page 28 Johns. Four of Palma’s gunshot wounds were inflicted by bullets entering his body at a “downward” angle. (Autopsy Rep., R. 50-3, Page ID ##947–50.) And two bullets entered from “back to front.” (Id. at Page ID #947.) Plaintiffs’ expert noted that the pattern of the gunshot wounds on Palma’s body indicated that “Palma was either on the ground, possibly in a fetal position and/or on his hands/knees and/or crawling when he was shot by Dep[uty] Johns.” (Expert Rep., R. 50-2, Page ID #932.)5 “These factual disputes are material because they concern the nature of any movement that [Palma] may have made just before the shooting.” Lopez v. City of Cleveland, 625 F. App’x 742, 746 (6th Cir. 2015) (denying summary judgment when witnesses disagreed whether suspect was facing officers while holding machete over his head or whether he was facing his sister with the machete at his side when officers shot him). Taking the facts in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, Johns continued shooting even though he could now see that Palma was not holding a weapon, Palma was not moving, and Palma was bent over with his hands on the ground. In that situation, any threat Palma posed dissipated after the first few shots and that Johns acted unreasonably by continuing to shoot Palma.