Adams v. Sheriff of Palm Beach County, 658 F. App'x 557

On May 16, 2012, PBSO Sergeant Michael Custer, in plain clothes and an unmarked vehicle during an undercover surveillance, encountered Seth Adams in a closed nursery parking lot; Adams later died from gunshot wounds inflicted by Custer.
Custer's account: Adams angrily approached, grabbed Custer by the throat, a struggle ensued, Adams attempted to access his truck and was pinned in the open driver’s door, then spun toward Custer as if armed, and Custer fired four shots in self‑defense.
Plaintiff (Adams’ mother) produced forensic, bloodstain, and witness evidence undermining Custer’s account: lack of neck injuries/DNA on Custer, truck door found closed, and evidence suggesting Adams was shot at the rear of the truck—not while pinned at the door.
Procedural posture: Plaintiff sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for excessive deadly force (Fourth Amendment) and for failure to render aid (Fourteenth Amendment); district court granted summary judgment on the due‑process and supervisory claims but denied Custer qualified immunity on the Fourth Amendment claim; Custer appealed.
The Eleventh Circuit reviews summary‑judgment denials on qualified immunity de novo, construing disputed facts in the plaintiff’s favor; it therefore asked whether, under the plaintiff‑favorable view, Custer violated clearly established law.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Custer’s use of deadly force violated the Fourth Amendment	Adams was unarmed, non‑threatening, shot at the rear of his truck — deadly force was unreasonable	Custer acted in self‑defense after Adams assaulted him and attempted to access a weapon in his truck	Construing facts for Plaintiff, deadly force was unreasonable; Fourth Amendment violation shown
Whether qualified immunity applies	Law clearly established that shooting unarmed, non‑threatening persons is unconstitutional	Custer argues his conduct did not violate clearly established law because he believed he faced an immediate threat	Law was clearly established; qualified immunity denied
Whether appellate court has jurisdiction over interlocutory appeal	Denial raises legal question whether law was clearly established, permitting interlocutory review	Appeal merely disputes existence of genuine factual issues (no interlocutory jurisdiction)	Court has jurisdiction because appeal raises legal issues central to qualified immunity
Whether factual disputes preclude summary judgment on qualified immunity	For purposes of qualified immunity, facts must be construed in Plaintiff’s favor and genuine disputes exist	Custer sought summary judgment based on his version of events	Material factual disputes exist; review proceeds under plaintiff‑favorable view

Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985) (deadly force unconstitutional where suspect is unarmed and poses no immediate threat)
Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (objective‑reasonableness Fourth Amendment standard for use of force)
Plumhoff v. Rickard, 134 S. Ct. 2012 (2014) (qualified immunity interlocutory appeals and review from perspective of reasonable officer on scene)
Tolan v. Cotton, 134 S. Ct. 1861 (2014) (requirement to draw factual inferences in favor of nonmovant at summary judgment in qualified immunity cases)
McCullough v. Antolini, 559 F.3d 1201 (11th Cir. 2009) (two‑part qualified immunity test and reviewing facts in plaintiff’s favor)
Mercado v. City of Orlando, 407 F.3d 1152 (11th Cir. 2005) (shooting a non‑threatening individual can be clearly established excessive force)