Opinion ID: 4563546
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Claims Against the Officers

Text: On appeal, we review the “grant of summary judgment de novo.” Hanover Ins. Co. v. American Eng’g Co., 33 F.3d 727, 730 (6th Cir. 1994). Summary judgment is appropriate only “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). Summary judgment is not appropriate if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party. See Weigel v. Baptist Hosp. of E. Tenn., 302 F.3d 367, 375 (6th Cir. 2002). Qualified immunity “protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” Goodwin v. City of Painesville, 781 F.3d 314, 320–21 (6th Cir. 2015) (quoting Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009)). Courts apply a “two-tiered inquiry to determine whether a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity.” Id. at 321. Summary judgment is inappropriate if a court finds that 1) there are genuine issues of material fact as to whether officers violated the plaintiff’s constitutional rights in an objectively unreasonable way, and 2) those rights were clearly established at the time such that a reasonable officer would have known that his conduct violated them. Id. -6- No. 19-4048, Adrienne Hood v. City of Columbus, OH, et al.
To determine if an officer’s use of force is excessive in violation of the Fourth Amendment, we ask “whether the officers’ actions are ‘objectively reasonable’ in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them, without regard to their underlying intent or motivation.” Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 397 (1989). We assess “reasonableness at the moment” of the use of force, as “judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.” Id. at 396. “[T]he key inquiry is whether a reasonable officer in the same circumstances would have used the same amount of force.” Mullins v. Cyranek, 805 F.3d 760, 768 (6th Cir. 2015). Use of deadly force is reasonable “[w]here the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others.” Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1, 11 (1985). Three factors from Graham guide our analysis: “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.” Goodwin, 781 F.3d at 321 (quoting Graham, 490 U.S. at 396). Ultimately, we determine whether “the totality of the circumstances justified a particular sort of search or seizure.” Garner, 471 U.S. at 9; see id. For the first Graham factor—the severity of the crime at issue—the Officers said they drove to the intersection of Duxberry Avenue and Ontario Street to find Green because he pulled a gun on them at the intersection of East 26th Avenue and Ontario Street. We apply the first Graham factor based on the encounter at the East 26th Avenue intersection. Green had a gun and no evidence contradicts the Officers’ assertion that he pulled it out. The only other witness was Rutledge, who could not say whether Green pulled out the gun because he was on his phone at the time. According to Rutledge, the Officers had to stop abruptly when Green walked in front of -7- No. 19-4048, Adrienne Hood v. City of Columbus, OH, et al. their unmarked GMC, and Green was angry and yelled at the Officers. The Officers immediately reported to dispatch that Green pulled out a gun. The Officers stated that they believed Green “posed a serious threat to anyone in the area,” and they intended to “get[] eyes on Green to make sure that he was taken into custody as soon as possible.” Considering all these circumstances, it was reasonable for the Officers to notify the police dispatch of the encounter and to continue their investigation. The record does not present a dispute of material fact on the first Graham factor. The other Graham factors—and whether there was a violation of Green’s constitutional rights—turn on the events at the intersection of Duxberry Avenue and Ontario Street. Because the shooting started almost immediately after the Rosen stopped their unmarked GMC, there is no evidence that the Officers made any attempt to arrest Green or that Green attempted to resist or evade arrest. The only remaining question is whether Green posed an immediate safety threat such that the Officers acted reasonably in drawing and firing their weapons. “The fact that a situation unfolds quickly ‘does not, by itself, permit [officers] to use deadly force.’ Rather, qualified immunity is available only where officers make split-second decisions in the face of serious physical threats to themselves and others.” Mullins, 805 F.3d at 766–67 (quoting Smith v. Cupp, 430 F.3d 766, 775 (6th Cir. 2005)). This analysis turns on the two segments of the encounter, which we analyze in turn.
Several witnesses, including Officers Rosen and Bare, Jordan, Anderson, and Alfred, and the forensic evidence indicated that Green pulled his gun and fired at the Officers at some point. Hickman and Newsome did not see Green with a gun, but they had partially obstructed views and were occupied with getting out of the way when the shooting began. -8- No. 19-4048, Adrienne Hood v. City of Columbus, OH, et al. We have held that “an officer may use deadly force whenever he or she, in the face of a rapidly unfolding situation, has probable cause to believe that a suspect poses a serious physical threat either to the police or members of the public.” Williams v. City of Grosse Pointe Park, 496 F.3d 482, 487 (6th Cir. 2007). Even if Green did not fire first, the Officers could still be “acting reasonably under the circumstances known to them [and] in defense of their own safety and the safety of officers through the use of deadly force.” Boyd v. Baeppler, 215 F.3d 594, 600 (6th Cir. 2000). In Mullins v. Cyranek, we found to be reasonable a police officer’s use of deadly force in response to a suspect pulling out a previously concealed weapon and throwing it over his shoulder. 805 F.3d at 767. We noted that the suspect there “had his finger on the trigger of a gun, and at that time, he posed a serious threat to [the officer] and the general public.” Id. And in one of the more recent cases on this subject, the Supreme Court found that an officer who shot a woman engaging in erratic behavior with a knife is entitled to qualified immunity, where the officer assessed in mere seconds that she was a potential danger to another person. Kisela v. Hughes, 138 S. Ct. 1148, 1151–53 (2018) (per curiam). Likewise, objectively reasonable officers could have viewed Green, who pointed and fired a gun at the Officers in close proximity, as a serious and immediate safety threat to themselves and others. The totality of the circumstances—the proximity of Green to the Officers, the fact that he had a gun with him and either shot at or was about to shoot at the Officers, and the split-second decision that the Officers had to make—suggest that the Officers did not violate Green’s constitutional rights when they first fired at Green.
Even if it was reasonable for the Officers to open fire, however, that does not automatically clear the entire encounter of the Constitution’s prohibition against excessive use of force. We have analyzed similar claims in segments and found some parts of police officers’ actions to be -9- No. 19-4048, Adrienne Hood v. City of Columbus, OH, et al. reasonable and other parts to be unreasonable. See, e.g., Russo v. City of Cincinnati, 953 F.2d 1036, 1044–45 (6th Cir. 1992) (analyzing separately three distinct excessive force claims raised by the plaintiffs even though they were part of one incident); Pleasant v. Zamieski, 895 F.2d 272, 276 (6th Cir. 1990) (analyzing whether the officer’s actions in arresting a suspect were objectively reasonable in two components: the officer’s decision to (1) draw his gun and (2) not to return the gun to its holster). In Bouggess v. Mattingly, 482 F.3d 886, 890 (6th Cir. 2007), we reiterated that “[i]t is crucial for the purposes of this inquiry to separate [the officer’s] decision-points and determine whether each of his particular decisions was reasonable.” Hood alleged that the Officers continued to shoot at Green even after he no longer held a gun and was falling or already down on the ground. The district court dismissed this argument and declined to adopt a segmented analysis because it viewed all the shots as a single incident. Citing Stevens-Rucker v. City of Columbus, the court found that the Officers’ shots were not separated by “such a significant gap in time that they must be viewed as distinct incidents requiring individualized analysis.” 739 F. App’x 834, 844 (6th Cir. 2018). In Stevens-Rucker, the court found that all the officer’s shots were part of a single incident because the last shots were fired “within a second or even fractions of a second” and there “was not enough time for [the officer] to stop and reassess the threat level between the shots.” Id. While all the shots fired were in quick succession here, Rosen himself remembered a momentary lapse when Green disappeared from his view. And Rutledge’s observation that the Officers walked over to Green and took more shots while Green was on the ground shows a segment of the event separate from the initial shots. Alfred, who was by his car on Ontario Street, also said that the Officers continued to shoot at Green even as he was falling to the ground, and then they each took two or three more shots when -10- No. 19-4048, Adrienne Hood v. City of Columbus, OH, et al. Green was on the ground. It appears that there were gaps between the Officers’ shots, and they had time to reassess Green’s threat. Applying a segmented approach to this situation, the question is whether “the officers’ initial decision to shoot was reasonable but there was no need to continue shooting.” Dickerson v. McClellan, 101 F.3d 1151, 1162 n.9 (6th Cir. 1996) (citing Ellis v. Wynalda, 999 F.2d 243, 247 (7th Cir. 1993) (“When an officer faces a situation in which he could justifiably shoot, he does not retain the right to shoot at any time thereafter with impunity.”)) “We have held repeatedly that the use of force after a suspect has been incapacitated or neutralized is excessive as a matter of law.” Baker v. City of Hamilton, 471 F.3d 601, 607 (6th Cir. 2006). In Russo v. Cincinnati, for example, we held that a reasonable jury could find that the officers violated the suspect’s constitutional rights with the use of deadly force when they repeatedly shot at the suspect, even after he dropped his weapon and posed no serious threat of physical harm. 953 F.2d at 1045. In Margeson v. White Cty., Tenn., police officers entered the suspect James Margeson’s residence, who grabbed his gun and pointed it at the officers. 579 F. App’x 466, 468 (6th Cir. 2014). Multiple officers shot at Margeson, and he suffered 21 separate gunshot wounds. Id. We held that while any objectively reasonable officer would respond with deadly force in the first instance, the officers there were not entitled to qualified immunity on summary judgment because the record suggested that “at least twelve additional shots were fired at Mr. Margeson after he had fallen to the ground with multiple gunshot wounds,” and that “a jury could reasonably infer that Mr. Margeson became incapacitated, and was therefore unable to pose a threat after having been shot with the first few bullets.” Id. at 472. Both Rosen and Bare said they stopped shooting when Green fell to the ground. In cases involving the use of deadly force, the deceased suspect is unable to tell what occurred, and “[a] -11- No. 19-4048, Adrienne Hood v. City of Columbus, OH, et al. court may not simply accept what may be a self-serving account by the police officer. It must look at the circumstantial evidence that, if believed, would tend to discredit the police officer’s story.” Jefferson v. Lewis, 594 F.3d 454, 462 (6th Cir. 2010) (quoting Scott v. Henrich, 39 F.3d 912, 915 (9th Cir. 1994)). Several witnesses discredit the Officers’ claim. Rutledge stated that the Officers “were walking up on [Green’s] body,” which was “flat on the ground,” and shot him twice. Rutledge added that the Officers were “basically checking like he don’t move or nothing like that. . . . [H]e was already flat, so I don’t see why the actual two gunshots was necessary.” Alfred, from his vantage point down the block, stated that shots continued after Green had dropped his gun, “As he’s going down, like his gun done flew out his hand, . . . shots are still being [fired]. No. They still going. Then they stop.” Jordan, who was outside his home right at the intersection, said the police stopped shooting Green when he was flat on his back, but likely fired a shot while he was down on one knee, in the process of falling down. The experts from both parties indicated that some of Green’s gunshot wounds were sustained while he was in a “lowered” position, likely when he was down on the ground or in the process of going down. Considering the totality of the circumstances as explained by the multiple witnesses, including expert witnesses, the encounter between the Officers and Green is similar to the circumstances in Russo and Margeson, where the police continued to shoot even after the suspects were incapacitated, on the ground, and no longer safety threats. Genuine issues of material fact exist as to when the Officers stopped shooting at Green. This dispute is material to whether the Officers continued to shoot at Green after he was no longer a physical threat, in violation of Green’s constitutional rights. Drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of Hood, the nonmoving -12- No. 19-4048, Adrienne Hood v. City of Columbus, OH, et al. party, a jury could reasonably conclude that the Officers’ use of force in this context was unreasonable.
We turn to the second inquiry of the qualified immunity analysis: whether “the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.” Campbell v. City of Springboro, 700 F.3d 779, 786 (6th Cir. 2012). A right is clearly established if its contours are “sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.” Goodwin, 781 F.3d at 325 (quoting Wheeler v. City of Lansing, 660 F.3d 931, 938 (6th Cir. 2011)). To find a clearly established right, we ask whether the defendants had “fair warning” that the actions were unconstitutional; an unconstitutional act may be clearly established without an existing case with the exact same, or even “fundamentally similar” or “materially similar” facts. Id. (quoting Cummings v. City of Akron, 418 F.3d 676, 87 (6th Cir. 2005)). “The relevant, dispositive inquiry in determining whether a right is clearly established is whether it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation he confronted.” Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 202 (2001). As discussed above, the use of force is excessive as a matter of law once the suspect has been incapacitated or neutralized and is no longer a safety threat. See, e.g., Shreve v. Jessamine County Fiscal Court, 453 F.3d 681, 687 (6th Cir. 2006); Baker, 471 F.3d at 607; Dickerson, 101 F.3d at 1162 n.9. There may be instances when an officer is lawfully justified in using deadly force even on an already wounded suspect. In Boyd v. Baeppler, for example, we held that an officer was entitled to qualified immunity when he fired on a wounded suspect, because the evidence there indicated that the suspect was pointing a gun at the officers even after being wounded. 215 F.3d at 603. We have also held that “even when a suspect has a weapon, but the -13- No. 19-4048, Adrienne Hood v. City of Columbus, OH, et al. officer has no reasonable belief that the suspect poses a danger of serious physical harm to him or others, deadly force is not justified.” Bouggess, 482 F.3d at 896. And in Russo v. Cincinnati, we reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the officers on qualified immunity grounds because the “plaintiffs raised a genuine issue of fact as to whether . . . the officers may have shot [the suspect] even though he posed no serious threat of physical harm.” 953 F.2d at 1045. Several witnesses stated that the Officers here continued to shoot Green after he dropped his gun and was falling or already down on the ground. Our precedents provide “fair warning” to the Officers that shooting at Green after he was no longer a safety threat is unconstitutional. Officers Rosen and Bare are not entitled to qualified immunity on summary judgment.