945 F.3d 968
6th Cir.2019Background
- Joshua Blough, a schizophrenic who had stopped medication and reported recent suicide attempts, left his fiancée’s car while holding an open 3" knife during a drive to a mental-health facility.
- Amanda Reich (fiancée) called 911 and told dispatch Blough was mentally ill, off meds, armed, paranoid, and disliked police; two Elizabethtown officers responded for a welfare check.
- After officers arrived, Blough refused repeated commands to drop the knife, walked into a residential yard, and (per officers and some eyewitnesses) advanced toward Officer Richardson with the knife raised; Reich offers a different account (he was farther away and turning to run).
- Officer Richardson fired twice and Officer McMillen once; two bullets struck Blough and he died. Officers administered aid and plaintiffs sued under § 1983 and Kentucky tort law.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the City and officers on qualified-immunity grounds and excluded Reich’s post-deposition affidavit as contradicting her deposition; the Sixth Circuit majority affirmed. Judge Moore dissented, arguing the affidavit should have been considered and precluded summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Excessive force under the Fourth Amendment | Reich: officers shot Blough when he posed no imminent threat (was ~20–35 ft away and turning to run) | Officers: Blough refused commands, brandished a knife, advanced with knife raised and threatened to make them kill him | No constitutional violation; force was objectively reasonable given facts known to officers |
| Admissibility of Reich’s post-deposition affidavit | Affidavit clarified distances and scene placement; not a sham or direct contradiction | Affidavit contradicted Reich’s deposition (where she said she didn’t know distances); submitted after discovery closed to create issue | Majority: district court did not abuse discretion excluding the affidavit; affidavit contradicts deposition. Dissent: exclusion was an abuse of discretion |
| Qualified immunity — clearly established law | Reich: Sixth Circuit precedent (Sova, Studdard) placed officers on notice that shooting a non-advancing, distant, knife-wielding person is unlawful | Officers: no controlling precedent squarely governing these facts; split-second judgment allowed; even if violation, not clearly established | Qualified immunity applies; officers shielded because no clearly established right negating their conduct |
| State-law (Kentucky) claims and Ky. qualified immunity | Reich: state torts and bad-faith exceptions to immunity | Officers: Kentucky qualified immunity applies (discretionary acts, good faith, within authority); no evidence of malice or bad faith | Officers entitled to Kentucky qualified immunity; state tort claims dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985) (deadly-force justified only when officer has probable cause to believe suspect poses serious physical harm)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (use-of-force claims judged by objective-reasonableness standard under the Fourth Amendment)
- White v. Pauly, 137 S. Ct. 548 (2017) (qualified-immunity analysis considers only facts knowable to defendant officers)
- Kisela v. Hughes, 138 S. Ct. 1148 (2018) (clearly established law must be particularized; officers not liable unless precedent squarely governs)
- Chappell v. City of Cleveland, 585 F.3d 901 (6th Cir. 2009) (use of deadly force reasonable where suspect with knife advanced to within five–seven feet and refused commands)
- Sova v. City of Mt. Pleasant, 142 F.3d 898 (6th Cir. 1998) (denying qualified immunity where factual dispute existed whether suicidal, knife-wielding decedent posed immediate threat)
- Studdard v. Shelby County, 934 F.3d 478 (6th Cir. 2019) (distance and lack of advancement can preclude use-of-force justification; cited by dissent)