Donald Tucker v. Marquette Cnty., Mich., 20-1878

On June 9, 2016 Clifford Tucker called his doctor threatening suicide; Marquette County Deputy Keith Romback responded.
Inside Tucker’s home, after verbal confrontation and Tucker’s admission he’d called the hospital, Tucker retrieved a shotgun from another room and briefly swung it toward Romback before pointing it at the floor.
Tucker ignored Romback’s repeated commands to drop the gun, shouted “shoot me,” waved his free arm, and slowly advanced toward Romback. Romback fired four shots, fatally wounding Tucker.
Bodycam footage captured the incident; only limited factual disputes remained about Tucker’s hand placement on the gun and whether the barrel touched the floor.
Tucker’s estate sued Romback (excessive force), Marquette County (failure to train), and another officer; the district court granted summary judgment to Romback based on qualified immunity and dismissed the municipal claim. The estate appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Romback’s use of deadly force was an excessive-force violation of the Fourth Amendment	Romback shot Tucker although the shotgun was pointed at the floor and Tucker’s hand was not on the trigger, so deadly force was unreasonable and factual disputes preclude summary judgment	Romback faced an on-the-spot threat: a hostile, potentially suicidal man holding a shotgun who ignored commands and advanced; deadly force was objectively reasonable	Court: No constitutional violation; viewing video evidence and construing doubts for plaintiff, force was reasonable and justified by immediate threat; summary judgment for Romback (qualified immunity) affirmed
Whether Marquette County is liable under Monell for failure to train	County’s training failures led to constitutional violation by Romback	No underlying constitutional violation by Romback, so no municipal liability	Court: Municipal claim fails because there was no constitutional violation by the officer; county not liable

Wright v. City of Euclid, 962 F.3d 852 (6th Cir.) (standard of de novo review on summary judgment)
Cunningham v. Shelby County, 994 F.3d 761 (6th Cir.) (when events are captured on video, courts view facts as the video depicts)
Latits v. Phillips, 878 F.3d 541 (6th Cir.) (remaining uncertainties at summary judgment construed for nonmoving party)
Hicks v. Scott, 958 F.3d 421 (6th Cir.) (excessive-force test: objective reasonableness under the circumstances)
Burchett v. Kiefer, 310 F.3d 937 (6th Cir.) (deference to officer’s on-the-spot judgment)
Thomas v. City of Columbus, 854 F.3d 361 (6th Cir.) (officer may reasonably shoot when suspect is closing distance while armed even if not yet aimed)
Livermore ex rel. Rohm v. Lubelan, 476 F.3d 397 (6th Cir.) (armed suspect’s proximity, prior violence, and refusal to surrender can make deadly force reasonable)
Thornton v. City of Columbus, [citation="727 F. App'x 829"] (6th Cir.) (shotgun-wielding suspect walking toward officers while ignoring commands justified deadly force)
Jacobs v. Alam, 915 F.3d 1028 (6th Cir.) (mere possession of a firearm does not automatically justify deadly force)
King v. Taylor, 694 F.3d 650 (6th Cir.) (contrast case where factual disputes about aim and threat precluded summary judgment)