Edward Shaw v. City of Selma
884 F.3d 1093
| 11th Cir. | 2018Background
- In Dec. 2013 Selma police responded to a “disorderly conduct in progress” call about Ananias Shaw, a 74‑year‑old mentally ill man who had previously threatened someone with a knife at the same restaurant.
- Officers found Shaw in an abandoned laundromat; he picked up a hatchet and ignored repeated commands (at least 26 times) to drop it while walking away and then toward Officer Desmond Williams.
- Williams, positioned within a few feet of Shaw, shot Shaw once in the chest after Shaw advanced and yelled “Shoot it! Shoot it!”; Shaw died at the scene.
- Shaw’s estate sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for excessive force and false arrest, and asserted state tort claims against Williams, the police chief, and the City; defendants moved for summary judgment.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants; the Eleventh Circuit affirmed, addressing excessive force/qualified immunity, false arrest, and Alabama state‑agent immunity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Excessive force / qualified immunity | Shooting was unreasonable because video does not clearly show Shaw raising the hatchet when shot | Officer reasonably believed Shaw posed an imminent deadly threat while advancing with a hatchet and ignoring commands | Affirmed for Williams; force objectively reasonable and qualified immunity applies |
| False arrest (Fourth Amendment) | Shaw was effectively arrested when Williams trained his gun on him before the shooting | Pointing a gun during a stop does not automatically convert the encounter into an arrest; no seizure occurred because Shaw did not submit | Affirmed for defendants; no arrest occurred, claim fails |
| State‑law torts / state‑agent immunity (Alabama) | Williams acted maliciously or beyond authority in shooting Shaw; violated detailed procedures for dealing with mentally ill suspects | Shooting was discretionary law‑enforcement conduct and not willful, malicious, or contrary to detailed rules; within authority to prevent harm | Affirmed: Williams entitled to state‑agent immunity; Riley and City also immune |
| Sufficiency of factual disputes (video vs. estate’s version) | Disputed facts (e.g., whether hatchet was raised) preclude summary judgment | Video and precedent permit viewing facts as supporting reasonableness; video controls where clear | Affirmed: even assuming facts in estate’s favor, legal precedent supports summary judgment for defendants |
Key Cases Cited
- Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (use of deadly force governed by probable cause of threat to officer or others)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (Fourth Amendment objective‑reasonableness test for use of force)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007) (video evidence may control when it clearly contradicts plaintiff’s account)
- Smith v. LePage, 834 F.3d 1285 (11th Cir. 2016) (standard of review for qualified immunity at summary judgment)
- Singletary v. Vargas, 804 F.3d 1174 (11th Cir. 2015) (officers need not wait until suspect uses deadly weapon to act)
- Penley v. Eslinger, 605 F.3d 843 (11th Cir. 2010) (imminent threat central to excessive‑force analysis)