676 F. App'x 61
2d Cir.2017Background
- Timothy Devine engaged in an hours-long standoff with Connecticut Emergency Services Unit officers while armed with a loaded firearm and expressing suicidal intent.
- Officers used less-than-lethal tactics: flash grenades and rounds from a rubber-baton launcher after negotiations failed to disarm Devine. Devine subsequently fatally shot himself.
- The Estate of Timothy Devine sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging excessive use of force in violation of the Fourth Amendment; state-law claims were also asserted.
- The district court granted summary judgment to the officers based on qualified immunity and declined supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims, dismissing them without prejudice.
- The Estate appealed the qualified immunity ruling and the dismissal of state-law claims. The Second Circuit affirmed in a summary order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officers violated a clearly established Fourth Amendment right by using less-than-lethal force (rubber batons/flash grenades) against Devine | Devine had a right not to be seized with force while passively nonresponsive in a mental-health crisis; use of rubber batons was excessive | Use of less-than-lethal force against an armed, suicidal person after hours of failed negotiations was objectively reasonable; no clearly established law forbade the conduct | Officers entitled to qualified immunity because the right was not clearly established in these circumstances |
| Whether subjective officer remarks indicating acceptance of a self-harm outcome defeat qualified immunity | Statement shows unconstitutional intent or that force was unreasonable | Subjective remark does not establish objective unlawfulness for qualified immunity analysis | Subjective statement insufficient to overcome qualified immunity; objective legal standard controls |
| Whether out-of-circuit precedents established clearly that firing rubber batons here was unconstitutional | Cited cases where less-than-lethal projectiles were held unconstitutional support that officers should have known conduct unlawful | Those cases involved different facts (unarmed or less dangerous weapons, immediate use of force) and do not clearly control here | Out-of-circuit cases did not clearly establish unlawfulness where decedent brandished a loaded gun after prolonged standoff |
| Whether district court abused discretion in dismissing state-law claims after federal claims were dismissed | Estate argued federal dismissal shouldn’t require dismissal of state claims | District court properly declined supplemental jurisdiction after resolving federal claims | Affirmed: dismissal of state-law claims without prejudice was not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335 (malley standard: qualified immunity protects all but plainly incompetent or knowing violators)
- Mullenix v. Luna, 136 S. Ct. 305 (focus on whether violative nature of particular conduct was clearly established)
- Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (qualified immunity requires fair and clear warning)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (framework for constitutional-violation and clearly-established inquiries)
- Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (objective standard for clearly established law)
- Zalaski v. City of Hartford, 723 F.3d 382 (presence of firearm relevant to reasonableness analysis)
- Walczyk v. Rio, 496 F.3d 139 (illegality must be apparent to a reasonable officer)
- Terebesi v. Torreso, 764 F.3d 217 (factors for assessing whether a right is clearly established)
- Drimal v. Tai, 786 F.3d 219 (reiteration of qualified immunity standards)
- Glenn v. Washington County, 673 F.3d 864 (distinguishable: involved more immediately dangerous weapons or different facts)
- Mercado v. City of Orlando, 407 F.3d 1152 (distinguishable: rubber baton used at close range to head; different factual context)
- Deorle v. Rutherford, 272 F.3d 1272 (distinguishable: unarmed individual shot with beanbag round to face)
- Phillips v. Community Insurance Corp., 678 F.3d 513 (distinguishable: rubber batons against unarmed, non-resisting plaintiff)