Carol George v. Jarrett Morris, 724 F.3d 1191

In a 9‑1‑1 domestic disturbance call, deputies arrived to find Donald George on his rear patio armed with a firearm while his wife Carol George reported danger.
Deputies set up a perimeter around the house and confronted Donald as he emerged on the patio, with gun in hand and directed warnings issued.
Shots were fired by deputies after Donald conducted movements with the firearm; Donald died hours later from the gunshot wounds.
Carol George sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 asserting excessive-force Fourth Amendment claim on behalf of her husband and unlawful seizure claim against Deputy Hudley.
District court denied qualified immunity to the deputies on the excessive-force claim and dismissed Carol’s cross-appeal on the seizure claim; the Ninth Circuit reviewed on interlocutory appeal.
The appellate court adopted Carol’s version of the facts for summary judgment purposes and held that a reasonable jury could find the use of force unconstitutional.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether deputies used excessive force under the Fourth Amendment	George argues the shooting was unconstitutional given lack of immediate threat and disputed facts	Morris, Schmidt, and Rogers contend force was reasonable given an armed, potentially dangerous suspect	Yes; a reasonable jury could find excessive force under the circumstances
Whether the deputies are entitled to qualified immunity on the excessive-force claim	George's rights were clearly established; the deputies violated them	Rights were not clearly established; disputed facts preclude a clear legal ruling	No; the deputies are not entitled to qualified immunity; the claim may proceed

Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (non-exhaustive factors for on-scene reasonableness)
Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985) (guidance on deadly force and threats)
Scott v. Henrich, 39 F.3d 912 (9th Cir. 1994) (circumstantial/proof-based inference allowed when best witness is dead)
Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007) (interlocutory appeal and record taken as a whole; outright legal ruling when no genuine dispute of material fact)
Behrens v. Pelletier, 516 U.S. 299 (1996) (clear-cut legal issues appropriate for immediate appeal in qualified immunity cases)
Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304 (1995) (limits on reevaluating disputed facts on interlocutory review)
Eng v. Cooley, 552 F.3d 1062 (9th Cir. 2009) (interlocutory review limitations under collateral-order doctrine)
Ortiz v. Jordan, 131 S. Ct. 884 (2011) (clarifies when interlocutory review of qualified immunity is appropriate for purely legal questions)
Mattos v. Agarano, 661 F.3d 433 (9th Cir. 2011) (domestic-violence context; totality of circumstances; specific factors relevant to danger)
Bryan v. MacPherson, 630 F.3d 805 (9th Cir. 2010) (on-scene totality-of-circumstances approach; non-exhaustive Graham factors)
Wilkinson v. Torres, 610 F.3d 546 (9th Cir. 2010) (jurisdictional nuances in interlocutory qualified-immunity review)