Estate of Juan Bonilla Jr v. City of York
695 F. App'x 643
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- On Nov. 24, 2012, Juan Bonilla opened fire inside and then outside a nightclub (Ada’s) in York, PA; patrons fled to the parking lot; officers Roosen (York) and Jordan (West Manchester) responded.
- Officers pursued Bonilla as he ran south across the parking lot; officers fired; Bonilla was struck, stumbled, dropped a gun, and fell face-down on a grassy median with hands initially pinned under him.
- Ballistics and autopsy showed two wounds: a chest wound entering from the back (fatal) and a left-thigh wound entering from the front; a deformed bullet recovered from the front of Bonilla’s sweatshirt could not have been fired from Officer Jordan’s gun.
- An eyewitness testified (inconsistently) that Bonilla dropped his gun, raised his hands, and was walking toward officers when shot; investigators and defendants dispute sequence and visibility facts.
- Plaintiffs sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (excessive/deadly force) plus state-law claims and Monell claims against the municipalities for failure to train; District Court granted summary judgment for defendants and denied leave to amend; plaintiffs appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Excessive/deadly force under Fourth Amendment | Officers shot Bonilla after he dropped his gun and began surrendering, so force was unreasonable | Bonilla was an active shooter posing immediate danger to bystanders; officers reasonably used deadly force | Summary judgment for defendants: use of force was objectively reasonable given circumstances |
| Source/timing of fatal shot | Fatal chest shot could have been fired by Officer Jordan after Bonilla was unarmed and down | Ballistics show fatal bullet could not have come from Jordan’s gun; no evidence to rebut | No genuine dispute: evidence excludes Jordan as source of fatal shot |
| Eyewitness testimony credibility/sequencing | Eyewitness testimony establishes Bonilla surrendered before being shot, creating factual dispute | Eyewitness testimony was inconsistent and equivocal; even if believed, circumstances justify officers’ split-second response | Testimony insufficient to create genuine issue of material fact; officers’ perspective made continued shooting reasonable |
| Leave to amend to add leg-shot excessive-force claim | Plaintiffs sought to add claim that leg shot was excessive after Bonilla was unarmed | Amendment would be futile because shooting the leg was reasonable under the circumstances | Denial of leave to amend affirmed as not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (establishes objective-reasonableness standard for excessive force)
- Kopec v. Tate, 361 F.3d 772 (3d Cir. 2004) (lists factors relevant to force reasonableness)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (standard on sufficient evidence and scintilla rule for summary judgment)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment burden-shifting principles)
- Berckeley Inv. Group, Ltd. v. Colkitt, 455 F.3d 195 (3d Cir. 2006) (nonmoving party must rebut summary judgment with record evidence)
- U.S. ex rel. Customs Fraud Investigations, LLC v. Victaulic Co., 839 F.3d 242 (3d Cir. 2016) (standard of review for leave to amend; leave should be freely given absent futility)