Carabajal v. City of Cheyenne, WY
847 F.3d 1203
10th Cir.2017Background
- Early-morning police encounter (Sept. 19, 2011): Mathew Carabajal drove with three passengers including his infant son V.M.C.; an officer activated lights and siren and Carabajal did not immediately stop but drove several blocks before pulling over.
- Multiple patrol vehicles arrived; Officer Thornton positioned himself in front of Carabajal’s vehicle with a shotgun and warned, “Don’t start the car or I’ll shoot.”
- The vehicle moved forward slowly toward Thornton; approximately three seconds after it began moving, Thornton fired two shotgun rounds, severely wounding Carabajal; V.M.C. remained in a rear-facing car seat in the vehicle.
- Officers Sutton and Thornton then removed Carabajal from the vehicle; Plaintiffs sued the City and officers for excessive force, unlawful seizure (on behalf of V.M.C.), and negligent hiring of Thornton.
- District court dismissed V.M.C.’s seizure claim and granted summary judgment to the officers on qualified immunity grounds for Carabajal’s excessive-force claims and to the City on negligent hiring; the Tenth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Excessive force — shooting Thornton fired at driver | Carabajal: shooting was unreasonable because vehicle moved slowly or accidentally, officer placed himself in path, and no clear imminent threat | Officers: vehicle moved toward Thornton after noncompliance; in close quarters deadly force was reasonable; qualified immunity applies | Court: Qualified immunity — force reasonable under the circumstances; affirmed for Thornton (relying on Thomas and similar precedent) |
| Excessive force — removal from vehicle Rough handling when removing wounded driver | Carabajal: officers yanked and dragged him, exacerbating injuries; force was excessive and disputed by video and officer statements | Officers: video does not show rough or unreasonable force; removal justified by safety and noncompliance | Court: No constitutional violation shown; qualified immunity for officers on removal claim |
| Unlawful seizure — V.M.C. passenger shot-into car | Plaintiffs: shooting into occupied vehicle effectuated a seizure of passenger V.M.C. | Officer Thornton: qualified immunity and no clearly established law that firing at driver constitutes a seizure of a passenger in these facts | Court: Dismissal affirmed because law not clearly established; even if seizure plausible, qualified immunity bars relief |
| Negligent hiring — City liability for Thornton’s conduct | Plaintiffs: City failed to detect red flags (prior hiring rejections, alleged uncharged drug use, deficient follow-up) making Thornton unfit and foreseeable danger | City: extensive background checks, polygraph, psychological exam, and other vetting satisfied Wyoming standards; no evidence of propensity for excessive force | Court: No genuine issue that City should have foreseen unnecessary force; summary judgment for City affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (court may rely on uncontradicted video evidence when assessing summary judgment)
- Thomas v. Durastanti, 607 F.3d 655 (10th Cir. 2010) (officer entitled to qualified immunity where slow-moving vehicle advanced toward officer)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (qualified immunity two-step: constitutional violation and clearly established law)
- Brower v. County of Inyo, 489 U.S. 593 (seizure requires governmental termination of movement by intentionally applied means)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (reasonableness standard for Fourth Amendment excessive-force claims)
- Mullenix v. Luna, 136 S. Ct. 305 (clearly established prong requires law to be beyond debate)
- Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249 (passengers in a traffic stop are seized)
- Childress v. City of Arapaho, 210 F.3d 1154 (10th Cir. 2000) (passengers not seized where shots fired at vehicle that inadvertently wounded hostages)