Bleck v. City of Alamosa, 839 F. Supp. 2d 1149

Officers responded to a welfare check after a 911 report of a distressed veteran in a hotel room.
Plaintiff Bleck was alleged to be intoxicated, suicidal, and possibly armed; officers believed he posed an imminent danger.
Martinez entered the room first with gun drawn; other officers followed; Bleck did not comply with orders and may have attempted to stand.
Martinez attempted to gain control by a hands-on restraining technique while his gun remained drawn; the gun discharged, injuring Bleck.
Plaintiffs alleged excessive force (Fourth Amendment), inadequate training/supervision (city), and battery (state law); trial court granted summary judgment for defendants on federal claims and dismissed state claim without prejudice.
Final pretrial order and defendants’ motion mooted several arguments; the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state claim and entered judgment in defendants’ favor.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Bleck was seized under the Fourth Amendment	Bleck was seized when Martinez used force to restrain.	Seizure requires intentional termination of movement via the instrumentality; gun use was incidental.	No Fourth Amendment seizure; hands-on restraint, not gun, was the instrumentality; summary judgment for Martinez.
Whether the use of force was excessive under federal law	Excessive force occurred during the hands-on restraint.	There is no genuine dispute of volition; shooting was incidental or accidental.	Resolved in favor of defendants because no volitional act showed a Fourth Amendment violation.
Whether the city’s training/supervision claims survive	Failure to train/supervise caused the constitutional violation.	No underlying Fourth Amendment violation; no basis for failure-to-train claim.	Dismissed with the federal claims; grant of summary judgment on the training claim.

Brower v. County of Inyo, 489 U.S. 593 (U.S. 1989) (seizure requires willful termination of freedom of movement via the instrumentality)
Dodd v. City of Norwich, 827 F.2d 1 (2d Cir. 1987) (unintentional or incidental applications of force do not constitute a Fourth Amendment seizure)
Brice v. City of York, 528 F.Supp.2d 504 (M.D. Pa. 2007) (summary judgment appropriate where evidence disputed officer’s intent in firing during restraint)