Bah v. City of N.Y.
319 F. Supp. 3d 698
S.D. Ill.2018Background
- On Sept. 25, 2012 ESU officers (including Detect. Edwin Mateo and Lt. Michael Licitra) entered a Manhattan apartment where Mohamed Bah, an emotionally disturbed man, was behind a locked door holding a large kitchen knife. ESU had non-lethal tools (Arwen, Tasers, water cannon, Y-bar, ballistic shield).
- Police inserted a pole camera, then the door was pried open and Licitra ordered entry; a rapid confrontation followed (≈15 seconds from door opening to shots).
- Officer Kress used a ballistic shield and Taser; Mateo fired an Arwen then later a Glock 5 times while partly on the ground; Officer Green also fired a Glock; Kress fired a Sig Sauer. Bah died of multiple gunshot wounds, including a close-range head wound.
- The jury found Mateo liable for federal excessive-force and state battery claims and found Licitra liable on failure-to-supervise claims; verdict awarded $2,215,000 to plaintiff (no punitive damages). The City is liable vicariously for state claims.
- Defendants moved for judgment as a matter of law, a new trial, and/or qualified immunity. Court denies JMOL/new trial re: Mateo and City, grants JMOL as to Licitra, and denies qualified immunity for Mateo.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mateo used constitutionally excessive deadly force | Mateo shot Bah after Bah had ceased to pose a significant threat (evidence supports close-range head shot while Bah was incapacitated) | Mateo reasonably believed he and others faced imminent serious harm when he fired | Court: Jury reasonably found Mateo used excessive force; JMOL/new trial denied for Mateo and City |
| Whether Mateo is entitled to qualified immunity | No clear law authorizes shooting a wounded person on the ground; reasonable officers would know such force is unlawful | Mateo reasonably (even if mistakenly) believed Bah was stabbing/advancing; qualified immunity applicable | Court: Qualified immunity denied because defendants failed to obtain jury findings on critical facts (defendant bears burden to request those questions) |
| Whether Licitra is liable as a supervisor (failure to intervene / gross negligence) | Licitra ordered entry and failed to control firearms or stop excessive force; his supervision proximately caused violation | Entry and rapid shots were reasonable given facts; no realistic opportunity to intervene; no evidence of foreseeability or grossly negligent supervision | Court: JMOL granted for Licitra — no reasonable jury could find supervisory liability; alternatively Licitra entitled to qualified immunity |
| Whether City is liable under respondeat superior for state battery/negligent supervision | City vicariously liable for officers' tortious acts | City defends on sufficiency/qualified immunity grounds | Court: City liable on state claims because Mateo (an employee) found liable; motions denied as to City |
Key Cases Cited
- Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985) (deadly force unreasonable unless officer has probable cause to believe suspect poses significant threat of death or serious physical injury)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001) (qualified immunity recognizes reasonable mistakes about legal constraints on police conduct)
- Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (2011) (right must be clearly established for qualified immunity; contours must be sufficiently clear)
- White v. Pauly, 137 S. Ct. 548 (2017) (Garner principles are general; clearly established law requires particularized precedent)
- Kisela v. Hughes, 138 S. Ct. 1148 (2018) (Courts may deny qualified immunity in an "obvious case" despite lack of close precedent)
- O'Bert ex rel. Estate of O'Bert v. Vargo, 331 F.3d 29 (2d Cir. 2003) (Garner standard applies to shootings of persons on foot; unjustified deadly force when no probable cause of significant threat)
- Plumhoff v. Rickard, 572 U.S. 765 (2014) (officers may continue firing until the severe threat to public safety has ended)