Flythe v. District of Columbia
4 F. Supp. 3d 216
| D.D.C. | 2014Background
- Betty S. Flythe, in her personal capacity and on behalf of Mr. Flythe’s estate, sued the District of Columbia and two MPD officers after Mr. Flythe was fatally shot on Dec 26, 2009.
- Plaintiff asserted §1983 excessive-force claims against Officers Vazquez and Eagan, and common-law claims against the District and officers.
- The Court granted partial summary judgment in 2013, ruling no seizure by Vazquez and qualified immunity for Eagan, and dismissing negligent-supervision claims.
- The Court held there was a genuine issue of material fact about whether Flythe was armed and about the officers’ recitations of events, allowing assault claims to survive.
- Plaintiff sought reconsideration; after briefing on an intervening legal change (Brodie), the Court amended its judgment to reflect a genuine issue as to unlawful seizure by Vazquez.
- The current memorandum concludes that, per Brodie, there is a genuine issue of material fact as to seizure and the amount of force, denying summary judgment on Vazquez’s excessive-force claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Flythe was seized under the Fourth Amendment | Flythe submitted to police authority when Vazquez displayed a weapon | There was no seizure because Flythe fled or momentary submission was insufficient | Genuine issue of material fact; seizure status is unresolved |
| Whether Vazquez used excessive force in the seizure | Eyewitnesses saw unarmed Flythe with hands up; deadly force may be unwarranted | Officer acted to prevent escape where there was threat; depends on seizure | Issue of material fact; summary judgment denied on excessive-force claim |
| Impact of United States v. Brodie on the seizure analysis | Brodie controls, showing momentary submission can constitute seizure | Brodie is distinguishable or not controlling for this context | Intervening authority creates genuine factual questions; reconsideration warranted |
| Whether Vazquez is entitled to qualified immunity on the excessive-force claim | Clearly established law forbids deadly force on an unarmed suspect with hands in air | Qualified immunity should apply if reasonable officer could believe force was necessary | Qualified-immunity denial based on genuine factual disputes and clearly established law |
| Whether the District can be liable for assault and battery under respondeat superior | District liable for supervisors’ failure to supervise | No proximate-cause evidence to support supervision claim | No ruling on final liability; focus remains on Vazquez’s seizure/excessive-force issues |
Key Cases Cited
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (U.S. 2001) (two-step qualified-immunity inquiry; right must be clearly established)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (U.S. 1989) (reasonable-ness of force under Fourth Amendment)
- Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1985) (deadly force may be used to prevent escape if threat of serious harm exists)
- Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249 (U.S. 2007) (seizure may occur by show of authority; submission required)
- United States v. Wood, 981 F.2d 536 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (test for seizure with show of authority and submission)
- Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621 (U.S. 1991) (seizure defined by show of authority or physical force)
- Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491 (U.S. 1983) (police approach not by itself a seizure; submission matters)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (U.S. 2009) (discretionary sequencing of qualified-immunity inquiry)