42 USC § 1983; Excessive force; Qualified immunity; Clearly established right; Sova v City of Mount Pleasant; Studdard v Shelby Cnty; Distinguishing Reich v City of Elizabethtown

The court concluded that a reasonable jury could determine defendant-police officer (Russ) violated plaintiff-estate’s decedent’s (Groom) constitutional right to be free from excessive force, and that his right was clearly established at the time. Thus, it reversed the grant of summary judgment for Russ based on qualified immunity, and remanded. Construing the record evidence in plaintiff’s favor, “Groom did not pose an imminent and serious risk when Russ fired his weapon. Russ, the closest individual, stood near the back of his vehicle 30 feet away.” Another officer (L) was providing cover with his weapon “from behind Groom. Aside from telling Russ ‘[n]ot today’ when Russ said they needed to talk, . . . Groom did not make any verbal threats. He stood still for roughly 20 seconds, lowered his knife to waist height, then made one step sideways to Russ. This was not a threatening advance or at least that is what a jury could find on this record. Even so, Russ fired the shot as soon as Groom ‘began to move.’” The court noted that Russ was aware “Groom had robbed a pharmacy. He knew that Groom had unsheathed a knife when the officers confronted him and disregarded commands to drop it. And he knew that Groom had walked to a position 30 feet away and that Groom told Russ to shoot him. But all record facts considered, Groom’s actions in the moments before the shooting did not justify lethal force. Even [L] thought that Groom had calmed down and ‘didn’t see any reason for a shot to be fired from where’ he stood behind Groom.” As to whether the right was clearly established, the court found that Sova governed here. “Both cases involved a knife-wielding man who disregarded commands to drop the weapon. Each man told officers to shoot him. And each man moved just before being shot.” While Russ tried to distinguish Sova, he could not provide a “good answer” to explain why the court should grant qualified immunity here when it denied it there. In addition, it found Reich distinguishable, as “Groom’s conduct differed materially.”