460 F.Supp.3d 1088
D. Or.2020Background
- On April 7, 2018, John Elifritz—earlier reported as having carjacked, driven recklessly, and been observed acting erratically—was seen inside CityTeam shelter holding a 3–4 inch knife and cutting his neck; earlier that day officers had logged a mental-health encounter (a "mental health template").
- Bystanders reported Elifritz tried to stab someone and had earlier put a knife to his throat; officers arrived, told bystanders to seek cover, and attempted de-escalation and less-lethal options (beanbag rounds, warnings); less-lethal rounds failed to stop him.
- Video shows Elifritz move from behind a pillar, run up an aisle toward officers holding the knife, and come within seconds of reaching them; six officers fired handguns in a 2–3 second volley; Elifritz died.
- Plaintiff (personal representative) sued the City and seven officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Fourth Amendment excessive force), Monell, and Oregon wrongful-death law; defendants moved for summary judgment.
- The court concluded no Fourth Amendment violation: officers reasonably used deadly force when Elifritz charged with a knife, and they are entitled to qualified immunity; Monell and failure-to-train/custom theories failed; the felonious-conduct defense barred the wrongful-death claim under Oregon law.
- Judgment: summary judgment granted for defendants; all federal and state claims dismissed with prejudice; claims against Bailey and Damerville (less-lethal only) dismissed with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Excessive force (Fourth Amendment) | Elifritz was not an immediate threat given distance, furniture barriers, bystanders separated by a short wall, availability of less-lethal options and de-escalation | Officers faced an immediate threat when Elifritz charged with a knife after ignoring commands and after less-lethals failed; force was objectively reasonable | Court held force reasonable: Elifritz posed immediate threat when he ran at officers with knife; §1983 claims dismissed |
| Qualified immunity | Officers violated the Fourth Amendment (so no immunity) | Even if a violation, no clearly established precedent would have put officers on notice their conduct was unlawful | Court held officers entitled to qualified immunity (and in fact found no constitutional violation) |
| Monell (municipal liability) | City had a pattern/custom of excessive force against mentally ill (cites 2012 DOJ report) and failed to train/supervise | City followed written policies, provided crisis-intervention training; no showing of persistent practice or deliberate indifference continuing to 2018 | Court dismissed Monell: no underlying constitutional violation; even on merits plaintiff failed to show continuing custom or deliberate indifference |
| Wrongful death (Oregon law) | City/Officers caused unjustified death | At time of shooting Elifritz was committing a Class B felony (attempted first-degree assault) and officers’ deadly force was justified under O.R.S. 161.239 | Court found by preponderance Elifritz committed attempted first-degree assault and officers’ use of deadly force was justified; wrongful-death claim barred |
Key Cases Cited
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (Sup. Ct. 1989) (excessive-force reasonableness standard under the Fourth Amendment)
- Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (Sup. Ct. 1985) (deadly force implicates highest Fourth Amendment scrutiny)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (Sup. Ct. 2007) (on view of video evidence at summary judgment)
- Deorle v. Rutherford, 272 F.3d 1272 (9th Cir. 2001) (warnings and emotional disturbance are relevant Graham factors)
- Glenn v. Wash. Cty., 673 F.3d 864 (9th Cir. 2011) (mental-health context and force analysis)
- S.B. v. County of San Diego, 864 F.3d 1010 (9th Cir. 2017) (availability of less-intrusive alternatives and relevance of emotional disturbance)
- Sheehan v. City and Cty. of San Francisco, 575 U.S. 600 (Sup. Ct. 2015) (deadly force reasonable where subject with knife advanced on officers despite less-lethal efforts)
- Kisela v. Hughes, 138 S. Ct. 1148 (Sup. Ct. 2018) (qualified immunity in borderline excessive-force cases)
- Mullenix v. Luna, 136 S. Ct. 305 (Sup. Ct. 2015) (qualified immunity and need for case-specific precedents)
- White v. Pauly, 137 S. Ct. 548 (Sup. Ct. 2017) (clearly-established-law standard for qualified immunity)