Alcala v. Ortega, 128 F.4th 1298

Diego Eguino-Alcala was shot and killed by Deputy Sheriff Arturo Ortega during a standoff following a car accident in Las Cruces, New Mexico, after reports that he brandished a firearm at bystanders.
Ortega confronted Eguino-Alcala, who failed to comply with police commands, assumed a posture consistent with drawing a weapon, and made a sudden movement suggestive of aiming a gun at Ortega.
Ortega fired nine shots, killing Eguino-Alcala, who was later found to be unarmed.
The estate of Eguino-Alcala filed suit alleging excessive force and municipal liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, among other claims.
The district court granted summary judgment for Ortega, finding qualified immunity protected him from liability, and dismissed the federal claims.
The estate appealed the dismissal of the § 1983 claims and the entry of final judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did Ortega use excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment?	Ortega unreasonably used deadly force; Eguino-Alcala did not pose an immediate threat and may not have had time to comply.	Ortega reasonably perceived an immediate threat based on prior information and Eguino-Alcala's sudden movement.	No excessive force; Ortega’s actions were objectively reasonable.
Was there a genuine dispute of material fact sufficient to preclude summary judgment?	Dashcam video is ambiguous; a jury could side with the estate’s version of events.	Dashcam video irrefutably shows Eguino-Alcala’s threatening movement before Ortega fired.	No genuine dispute; video evidence supports Ortega’s account.
Was any constitutional violation "clearly established" at the time?	It was clearly established that lethal force is unreasonable in absence of an immediate threat.	The law allows deadly force when an officer reasonably believes there is a threat, even if mistaken.	No clearly established violation; qualified immunity applies.
Should municipal liability attach under § 1983?	Liability for County since Ortega’s use of force was unconstitutional.	No underlying constitutional violation, so no municipal liability.	No municipal liability, as there was no constitutional violation.

Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (excessive force claims evaluated by objective reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment)
Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (sets forth qualified immunity framework)
Plumhoff v. Rickard, 572 U.S. 765 (qualified immunity shields officials unless law is clearly established)
Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335 (qualified immunity protects all but the "plainly incompetent" or those who knowingly violate the law)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard)
Tolan v. Cotton, 572 U.S. 650 (evidence must be viewed in light most favorable to plaintiff at summary judgment)
Est. of Larsen ex rel. Sturdivan v. Murr, 511 F.3d 1255 (evaluates immediacy of threat for deadly force)
Cox v. Wilson, 971 F.3d 1159 (officer’s knowledge at the scene is critical in reasonableness analysis)
Medina v. Cram, 252 F.3d 1124 (reasonableness of split-second decisions by officers under stress)
Est. of Ceballos v. Husk, 919 F.3d 1204 (greater justification for police shooting where suspect believed armed with a firearm)