Opinion ID: 201947
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Qualified immunity: officers Lebrón and Mangomé

Text: 15 Defendants Lebrón and Mangomé argue that the district court erred in not granting them qualified immunity for two reasons. First, they argue that the plaintiffs failed to present sufficient evidence to establish a violation of Whitfield's constitutional rights. Second, they argue that their conduct was objectively reasonable under the circumstances. They emphasize that they were forced to make a split-second decision, under hostile circumstances, about whether their use of deadly force would be justified. Given the volatility of the situation, most notably their belief that Whitfield was turning to shoot at them, they argue that their decision to fire in self-defense was not unreasonable. The fatal flaw in the defendants' argument is that it ignores the clear implication of the jury's verdict: that the jury did not believe their self-defense story. 16 We review the district court's denial of qualified immunity de novo. See Jarrett v. Town of Yarmouth, 331 F.3d 140, 146 (1st Cir.2003). When, as here, the defendants appeal from a denial of qualified immunity after a jury verdict has been rendered, the evidence is construed in the light most hospitable to the party that prevailed at trial, and deference is accorded the jury's discernible resolution of disputed factual issues. Id. at 147 (quoting Iacobucci v. Boulter, 193 F.3d 14, 23 (1st Cir. 1999)). 17 The doctrine of qualified immunity provides a safe harbor for public officials acting under the color of state law who would otherwise be liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for infringing the constitutional rights of private parties. See Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 638, 107 S.Ct. 3034, 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987). It is a compromise that strives to balance [the] desire to compensate those whose rights are infringed by state actors with an equally compelling desire to shield public servants from undue interference with the performance of their duties and from threats of liability which, though unfounded, may nevertheless be unbearably disruptive. Buenrostro v. Collazo, 973 F.2d 39, 42 (1st Cir.1992). Public officials are therefore entitled to qualified immunity unless the facts establish that their conduct violated a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the violation such that a reasonable officer would have known that the conduct at issue was unlawful. Santana v. Calderon, 342 F.3d 18, 23 (1st Cir.2003). 18 We ordinarily assess claims of qualified immunity under a three-part test. Riverdale Mills v. Pimpare, 392 F.3d 55, 60-61 (1st Cir.2004). First, we ask whether the facts alleged, taken in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, amount to a violation of a constitutional right. Id. at 61 (citing Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151, 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001)). Second, we ask whether that constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. Id. And third, we ask whether a reasonable officer, similarly situated, would understand that his or her conduct violated that clearly established right. Id. 19 In an excessive force case, the threshold constitutional question is analyzed under the Fourth Amendment's objective reasonableness standard. See Saucier, 533 U.S. at 204-05, 121 S.Ct. 2151 (citing Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 394, 109 S.Ct. 1865, 104 L.Ed.2d 443 (1989)). Under this standard, if an officer reasonably, but mistakenly, believed that a suspect was likely to fight back ... the officer would be justified in using more force than in fact was needed. Id. at 205. In denying the defendants' pre-trial and mid-trial motions seeking to invoke the qualified immunity defense, the district court found that there were material factual disputes bearing on whether the defendant police officers had acted reasonably under the circumstances. The primary dispute concerned whether Whitfield posed a threat to the officers at the time that they shot him. Specifically disputed was whether Whitfield was running away, or whether he had stopped running and had turned toward the officers with a metal object in his hand. 20 The jury entered a verdict for the plaintiffs, specifically finding that Lebrón and Mangomé showed deliberate indifference in committing acts that violated [Whitfield's] right not to be subjected to excessive or unreasonable force during an arrest. In addition to compensatory damages, the jury awarded punitive damages, finding that the defendants acted with malice or with intent or reckless indifference to violate Whitfield's constitutional rights. In light of these findings, the district court denied qualified immunity for the police officers and entered judgment for the plaintiffs. 21 We need not linger on the threshold question — whether the evidence established a constitutional violation. 4 The Supreme Court concluded twenty years ago that a police officer may not use deadly force against a fleeing suspect unless it is necessary to prevent the suspect's escape and the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others. See Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1, 11, 105 S.Ct. 1694, 85 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985); Jarrett, 331 F.3d at 149 ([T]he use of deadly force is constitutional only if, at a minimum, a suspect poses an immediate threat to police officers or civilians.). The police officers in this case defended their actions by arguing that they had shot Whitfield in self-defense. [T]he problem with this argument is that it depends upon the officers' version of the facts—a version the jury plainly rejected. Acosta v. City of San Francisco, 83 F.3d 1143, 1148 (9th Cir.1996) (quoting Posr v. Doherty, 944 F.2d 91, 95-96 (2d Cir.1991)); Stephenson v. Doe, 332 F.3d 68, 78 (2d Cir.2003) ([holding that the jury's verdict of liability on excessive force apparently credited] [the plaintiff's] account that he was not given adequate warning and was unarmed and fleeing when he was shot). The evidence here was sufficient to support a finding that an unarmed Whitfield was shot from behind as he fled. The jury apparently credited this version of the events and we see no basis for disturbing its finding. 22 With the jury having supportably found a violation of Whitfield's Fourth Amendment right to be free from excessive force, we next consider whether the right was clearly established at the time of the incident and whether an objectively reasonable official would have believed that the action taken violated that clearly established constitutional right. Wilson v. City of Boston, 421 F.3d 45, 58 (1st Cir.2005) (internal quotation omitted). This inquiry must be undertaken in light of the specific context of the case, not as a broad general proposition. Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151. The contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right. Id. at 202, 121 S.Ct. 2151 (quoting Anderson, 483 U.S. at 640, 107 S.Ct. 3034). Although the Supreme Court has cautioned that in many cases the generalized holdings of Garner and Graham will not provide sufficient notice to police officers, the Court has also acknowledged that, in the obvious case, the standards announced in those decisions alone are sufficient to `clearly establish' the answer. Brosseau v. Haugen, 543 U.S. 194, 125 S.Ct. 596, 599, 160 L.Ed.2d 583 (2004); Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 741, 122 S.Ct. 2508, 153 L.Ed.2d 666 (2002) ([Officials can still be on notice that their conduct violates established law even in novel factual circumstances.]). 23 Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the verdict, the district court correctly concluded that a reasonable officer, similarly situated, would understand that his or her conduct violated the rights clearly established in Garner and Graham. This is especially true given the factual similarity between Garner and the present case. In Garner, a burglary suspect attempted to escape the police by climbing over a chain link fence. See 471 U.S. at 3, 105 S.Ct. 1694. Although the arresting officer did not see a weapon on the suspect, he shot the suspect in the back of the head as he climbed the fence. See id. at 3-4, 105 S.Ct. 1694. Applying the Fourth Amendment balancing test, the Supreme Court stated that, while it is no doubt unfortunate when a suspect who is in sight escapes, ... the fact that the police arrive a little late or are a little slower afoot does not always justify killing the suspect. A police officer may not seize an unarmed, noncancerous suspect by shooting him dead. Id. at 11, 105 S.Ct. 1694. See also Ellis v. Wynalda, 999 F.2d 243 (7th Cir.1993) (denying qualified immunity where a police officer shot a burglary suspect in the back after the suspect threw a light-weight mesh bag and a jacket at the officer and then turned and ran away); Davis v. Little, 851 F.2d 605, 607-08 (2d Cir.1988) (finding a Fourth Amendment violation where a fleeing felon, who had allegedly punched and shoved two police officers in making his escape, was subsequently shot by one of the police officers who knew the felon was unarmed). Because the jury rejected the defendants' contention that Whitfield appeared threatening, the district court correctly concluded that Lebrón and Mangomé were not entitled to qualified immunity.