99 F.4th 63
1st Cir.2024Background
- On Feb. 7, 2020, Juston Root pointed a gun at hospital security and a BPD officer, fired at police, then led officers on a high‑speed chase that ended in a crash in Brookline.
- After crashing, Root fled on foot into a mulched area; officers ordered him to show hands and drop a weapon; multiple officers perceived Root reach into his jacket as if for a gun.
- Six officers (one State Trooper and five BPD officers) fired a total of 31 shots within roughly three seconds; a BB gun was recovered from the area of Root’s chest/hands and two other guns were found in his car. Root died.
- Plaintiff (Root’s sister, as estate representative) sued six officers and the City of Boston under § 1983, the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act, and state tort claims (assault/battery, wrongful death); district court granted defendants summary judgment.
- The First Circuit affirmed: held the officers’ use of deadly force was objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, held officers entitled to qualified immunity, and affirmed summary judgment on the PIT/kick and municipal failure‑to‑train claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Excessive force (fatal shooting) | Root was incapacitated and not posing an immediate threat; testimony/evidence creates triable issues about whether he reached for a weapon | Officers reasonably believed Root was armed and saw him reach into his jacket; split‑second decisions justified deadly force | Affirmed for defendants — no reasonable jury could find force unreasonable under totality of circumstances |
| Qualified immunity (shooting) | Law clearly established that shooting an incapacitated, bleeding person is unconstitutional | No controlling precedent put officers on notice; objectively reasonable officers could believe shooting lawful | Affirmed — officers entitled to qualified immunity |
| McMenamy's PIT maneuver and kick (non‑deadly force) | PIT violated policy; kick unlawful force | PIT/kick reasonable under circumstances; even if constitutional question exists, qualified immunity applies | PIT: resolved for defendant on qualified immunity; Kick: no Fourth Amendment violation; summary judgment affirmed |
| Municipal liability (failure to train/supervise) | City’s training/supervision was deficient; pattern of excessive force complaints supports deliberate indifference | BPD trained against PITs and on use of force; no pattern showing obvious training deficiency or deliberate indifference | Affirmed — plaintiff failed to show a municipal policy/custom or deliberate indifference sufficient to impose § 1983 liability |
Key Cases Cited
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (Fourth Amendment "objective reasonableness" test for excessive‑force claims)
- Plumhoff v. Rickard, 572 U.S. 765 (2014) (assessing reasonableness of force in high‑speed pursuit context)
- Kisela v. Hughes, 584 U.S. 103 (2018) (reasonableness judged from perspective of reasonable officer on scene; split‑second decisions)
- Estate of Rahim v. Doe, 51 F.4th 402 (1st Cir. 2022) (list of reasonableness factors applied in First Circuit excessive‑force analysis)
- Fagre v. Parks, 985 F.3d 16 (1st Cir. 2021) (summary judgment review and excessive‑force framework)
- McKenney v. Mangino, 873 F.3d 75 (1st Cir. 2017) (deadly‑force can become unreasonable if justification has ceased)
- Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S. 51 (2011) (Monell failure‑to‑train deliberate‑indifference standard)
- City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378 (1989) (municipal liability for failure to train in narrow, obvious‑need circumstances)