Brockington v. Boykins, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 5728

Brockington was convicted of kidnapping, conspiracy to kidnap, carjacking, and robbery after a jury trial, but was acquitted of gun-related offenses.
Brockington filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint alleging Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment violations against Officer Boykins and the Baltimore Police Department.
The district court granted Brockington’s request for counsel and allowed a Second Amended Complaint (SAC).
The SAC describes a July 5, 2005 confrontation where Boykins fired at Brockington while Brockington was unarmed and four feet away on backyard steps.
Brockington was hit multiple times, rendered helpless on the ground, spent weeks on life support, and became paraplegic.
Boykins moved to dismiss on qualified immunity grounds; the district court denied without reasoning; the denial was immediately appealable.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the use of deadly force after incapacitation violated clearly established rights.	Brockington contends continued firing was excessive and not necessary once he was incapacitated.	Boykins asserts he had probable cause to act and that deadly force could be justified if a threat persisted.	Six or more shots after incapacitation were excessive; qualified immunity not shown.
Whether the right was clearly established for continued shooting in this sequence.	Waterman/Tennessee v. Garner guidance implied continued shooting after initial threat was unjustified.	Argues no clearly established rule addressed the precise sequence; gray areas allowed reasonable guesses.	The right was clearly established; continuing to shoot an incapacitated suspect was not justified.
Whether the district court properly denied Boykins' qualified-immunity defense at the 12(b)(6) stage.	Graham framework and sequence of events support plausible claim of constitutional violation.	Qualified immunity should shield Officer Boykins absent clearly established rights violation.	District court’s denial affirmed; plaintiff stated a plausible § 1983 claim.

Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (objective reasonableness in use of force; factors balancing intrusion and governmental interests)
Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985) (deadly force not justified against non-imminent threat; balance of danger and intrusion)
Waterman v. Batton, 393 F.3d 471 (4th Cir. 2005) (breaks in sequence of events may affect reasonableness; continuing force after elimination of justification is improper)
Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001) (two-step framework for qualified immunity (later modified by Pearson))
Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (modifies/permits addressing qualified-immunity questions in either order)
Maciariello v. Sumner, 973 F.2d 295 (4th Cir. 1992) (gray areas not a license for unreasonable conduct; focus on clearly established rules)
Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730 (2002) (officials can be on notice of illegality in novel factual situations)