In Easley v. City of Riverside, published May 18, 2018, a divided panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment granted to a police officer defendant in a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 excessive-force case. The plaintiff was an occupant of a car that was driving erratically. When a police car behind it turned on its lights and siren, the other car initially did not respond. The car then stopped abruptly, and the plaintiff bolted from the car clutching his waistband. The defendant and his partner exited their car. The partner shouted, "Gun" or "He's got a gun." The plaintiff continued to clutch his waistband with his right hand. With his left, he pulled an object (later determined to be a gun) from his pocket and flung the item, in a manner similar to throwing a Frisbee, to his left. Within two to four seconds of plaintiff throwing the gun, the defendant officer shot him three times. The plaintiff survived. During the litigation, the defendant officer pleaded the defense of qualified immunity in his answer. The plaintiff agreed to dismiss some claims, and the defendant officer agreed not to seek summary judgment on the remaining claims. But the district court judge sua sponte raised the issue of qualified immunity, and ordered an evidentiary hearing on the issue. After hearing testimony, the judge determined there was no genuine issue of material fact for a jury to determine, and granted the defendant judgment as a matter of law based on qualified immunity.
The majority held that the district court judge had discretion to grant summary judgment on its own motion. The defendant officer had pleaded the defense, and the agreement not to seek summary judgment was not a waiver of the defense. The majority further agreed that under the facts viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the plaintiff's act in throwing the gun like a Frisbee (with his left arm lifting up), and the officer's use of deadly force within seconds afterward, would lead a reasonable officer to believe that the plaintiff was drawing a gun at him; and the use of deadly force did not violate clearly-established law. The dissenting judge, a district court judge from Iowa sitting by assignment, opined that sua sponte summary judgment should not be granted, and that issues of fact prevented summary judgment based on qualified immunity.
Comments