Estate of Jaime Ceballos v. Husk
919 F.3d 1204
| 10th Cir. | 2019Background
- 911 call (Aug 30, 2013): Quianna Vigil reported husband Jaime Ceballos in the driveway "acting crazy," armed with one or more baseball bats, drunk/possibly on drugs, and she had left the house with their infant; dispatcher noted prior knife threat and a recent "walkaway."
- Officers Husk and Ward arrived; Hus k took lead, did not check CAD; two companions told officers Ceballos "was not acting right" but were allegedly ignored.
- Officers approached Ceballos in the street (~100 yards from residence), shouted commands to drop the bat; Ceballos went into garage, emerged with bat and walked toward officers; distance when shot disputed (approx. 12–20 feet); no members of the public were present.
- Officer Ward fired a taser (timing disputed); Husk drew his firearm and shot Ceballos within about a minute of arrival; a closed pocketknife was found after the shooting; other officers had not returned with less-lethal weapon.
- City training: Thornton offers a 40-hour voluntary Crisis Intervention Training (CIT); Husk was not CIT-trained, Ward was; plaintiffs’ experts say department training and de-escalation fell below standards and contributed causally.
- Procedural posture: District court denied summary judgment to Husk (qualified immunity) on §1983 excessive-force claim, denied summary judgment to City on failure-to-train §1983 claim, and denied Husk CGIA immunity on state wrongful-death claim; interlocutory appeals followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Husk is entitled to qualified immunity on §1983 excessive-force claim | Ceballos says Husk’s rapid, close confrontation and failure to de-escalate recklessly created the need for deadly force; Allen and related Tenth Circuit precedent put Husk on notice his conduct was unconstitutional | Husk argues existing law was not sufficiently particularized to show his specific conduct violated the Fourth Amendment | Denied qualified immunity; court held Allen and related 10th Circuit precedent clearly established that recklessly precipitating a deadly confrontation can violate the Fourth Amendment, so factual disputes preclude summary judgment (affirmed) |
| Whether the City is entitled to summary judgment on §1983 failure-to-train claim | Plaintiffs: CIT not mandatory, many officers untrained, department practices and lack of de-escalation show inadequacy, deliberate indifference, and causation | City: training adequate or, if inadequate, not deliberately indifferent and not causally linked to shooting; appeal not appealable here | Appeal dismissed for lack of pendent appellate jurisdiction (court declines to review interlocutory municipal training appeal) |
| Whether Husk is immune under Colorado Governmental Immunity Act (CGIA) from wrongful-death tort claim | Plaintiffs: disputed facts (haste, no de-escalation, failure to gather info, creation of exigency) could support willful and wanton finding, defeating immunity | Husk: CGIA immunity applies unless conduct was willful and wanton; he argues no such evidence and seeks interlocutory review | Appeal dismissed for lack of federal appellate jurisdiction over state-law immunity ruling (court lacks basis to hear interlocutory CGIA issue) |
Key Cases Cited
- Allen v. Muskogee, 119 F.3d 837 (10th Cir. 1997) (officers may be liable where their reckless approach precipitates deadly force)
- Sevier v. City of Lawrence, 60 F.3d 695 (10th Cir. 1995) (reasonableness inquiry may include officer conduct that immediately created need for force)
- Medina v. Cram, 252 F.3d 1124 (10th Cir. 2001) (qualified immunity burden-shifting and considering officers’ pre-seizure conduct)
- Thomson v. Salt Lake Cty., 584 F.3d 1304 (10th Cir. 2009) (context where deadly force to prevent armed suspect’s escape into public was reasonable)
- Kisela v. Hughes, 138 S. Ct. 1148 (2018) (Supreme Court: excessive-force standards require particularized, not high-level, clearly established law)