293 F. Supp. 3d 493
D.N.J.2017Background
- On December 17, 2012, Atlantic City Officer John Smith shot and killed Derrek Denzel Mack during a foot pursuit after officers were alerted that two men in the area might be armed; Smith fired three times, hitting Mack twice in the back.
- Some police officers reported seeing Mack with a handgun (or seeing a gun on the ground after the shooting); non-police eyewitnesses did not confirm seeing a gun but did not affirmatively say Mack was unarmed. DNA testing of the recovered gun produced a mixed profile that did not exclude Mack as a partial contributor.
- Bystander video begins after the shooting and shows officers near Mack but no immediate treatment for several minutes; ambulance was dispatched about one minute after the shooting and arrived roughly four minutes later.
- Officer Michael Ruzzo called for an ambulance shortly after the shooting but escorted Officer Smith to the hospital rather than transporting Mack; Ruzzo testified he believed Mack was already dead.
- Plaintiff Ruby Conde (individually and on behalf of Mack’s estate) brought §1983 claims including excessive force (Fourth Amendment), state-created danger, denial of medical assistance/deliberate indifference, municipal liability (Monell), wrongful death, survivorship, and state-law battery; plaintiff conceded she was not pursuing a Monell failure-to-train theory.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Smith and Ruzzo (and for the City), holding Smith entitled to qualified immunity for use of deadly force and Ruzzo entitled to judgment on deliberate indifference and state-created-danger theories; consequently municipal and related claims were dismissed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Excessive force / deadly force (Fourth Amendment) | Smith used unreasonable, deadly force against an unarmed Mack who signaled surrender. | Smith reasonably believed Mack was armed and posed an imminent threat during a tense, on-foot pursuit; qualified immunity applies. | Judgment for Smith; use of deadly force was objectively reasonable and Smith entitled to qualified immunity. |
| Denial of medical assistance / deliberate indifference (Fourteenth/Eighth) | Officers (esp. Ruzzo) delayed/took no effective steps to render or permit timely medical aid to Mack. | An ambulance was summoned ~1 minute after shooting and arrived within minutes; officers on scene performed CPR later; Ruzzo reasonably removed Smith per policy and believed Mack was dead. | Judgment for Ruzzo; record does not show deliberate indifference or that actions would have changed outcome. |
| State-created danger (substantive due process) | Police conduct (shooting + failure to render aid) affirmatively increased danger to Mack. | Excessive force claims are governed by the Fourth Amendment; moreover no conscience-shocking conduct regarding post-shooting medical care. | Judgment for defendants; claim foreclosed by Fourth Amendment framework and, alternatively, fails under state-created-danger test. |
| Municipal liability (Monell) | City liable for customs/policies that led to denial of medical care and constitutional violations. | City cannot be held vicariously; Monell requires an underlying constitutional violation by officers. | Judgment for City; no underlying constitutional violations by Smith or Ruzzo, and plaintiff abandoned failure-to-train theory. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985) (deadly force as a seizure must be reasonable under the Fourth Amendment)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (excessive-force claims governed by Fourth Amendment objective reasonableness)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007) (court adopts plaintiff’s version of facts for qualified-immunity analysis; reasonableness is legal question)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982) (qualified immunity standard for government officials)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001) (two-prong qualified immunity framework)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (courts may decide qualified immunity prongs in discretional order)
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976) (deliberate indifference to serious medical needs violates Eighth Amendment, applied to pretrial detainees via Fourteenth Amendment)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment standard)