Flythe v. District of Columbia
2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 160025
| D.D.C. | 2013Background
- On Dec. 26, 2009, MPD Officers Angel Vazquez and Travis Eagan encountered Tremayne Flythe after a liquor-store owner reported someone throwing objects through windows; Vazquez first approached Flythe, who was walking a dog.
- Vazquez says Flythe produced a knife and attempted to stab him; Vazquez fired twice but his gun jammed and Flythe fled. Multiple bystanders, however, testified Flythe had his hands up and was unarmed during Vazquez’s encounter.
- Vazquez radioed that the suspect had a knife and that shots were fired; Eagan, responding to the radio and Vazquez’s pursuit, chased Flythe, observed Flythe reach toward his waistband, and shot and killed him. A knife was later recovered near Flythe’s body but was not forensically linked to him.
- Plaintiff (Flythe’s mother and estate) sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (excessive force), and brought common-law claims (assault & battery; wrongful death and survival) and negligent hiring/training/supervision against the District. Defendants moved for summary judgment.
- The court treated the encounters as two related events for some claims, analyzed seizure/excessive-force doctrines (Terry/Mendenhall/Hodari D./Garner/Graham), and evaluated municipal negligence and vicarious liability under D.C. law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Vazquez seized Flythe such that a §1983 excessive-force claim lies | Vazquez displayed authority and fired at Flythe; eyewitnesses say Flythe submitted (hands up) → seizure and excessive force | Vazquez never effectuated a seizure because Flythe fled after Vazquez’s gun jammed and never submitted | Court: Grant summary judgment to Vazquez on §1983 (no seizure; Flythe escaped) |
| Whether Eagan used excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment | Eagan shot Flythe without adequate basis; eyewitnesses cast doubt on knife possession | Eagan reasonably relied on radio reports and Vazquez’s pursuit; had probable cause to believe Flythe posed serious threat | Court: Grant summary judgment to Eagan on §1983 (use of deadly force objectively reasonable) |
| Whether the District is liable for negligent hiring, training, or supervision of Eagan and Vazquez | District failed to require fitness-for-duty physical before restoring Eagan; inadequate supervision/training caused the shooting | District acted on clinic/psychological recommendations; expert testimony required to define policing standard and none adequately established one | Court: Grant summary judgment to District on negligent hiring/training/supervision (plaintiff failed to present requisite expert standard) |
| Whether officers and District are liable for assault & battery (common law) | Eyewitness testimony creates fact issues (Vazquez fired at unarmed Flythe; District vicariously liable for both officers) | Eagan reasonably believed Flythe posed imminent danger (privilege); District not liable if officers privileged | Court: Deny SJ as to assault claim vs Vazquez (genuine issue of fact); grant SJ as to Eagan individually (privilege); deny SJ as to District on assault/battery (vicarious liability survives because factual disputes about whether Flythe was armed) |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary-judgment standard governs genuine disputes of material fact)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (movant may prevail by pointing to absence of evidence by non-movant)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (Fourth Amendment excessive-force review is objective-reasonableness)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (qualified immunity two-step: constitutional violation then clearly established law)
- Brower v. County of Inyo, 489 U.S. 593 (seizure requires governmental termination of freedom of movement)
- Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (deadly force seizure subject to Fourth Amendment; permissible when officer has probable cause to believe suspect poses serious threat)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (objective-reasonableness test for excessive force)
- Mendenhall v. United States, 446 U.S. 544 (“free-to-leave” test for show-of-authority seizure)
- California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621 (seizure occurs by physical force or submission to show of authority)
- Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249 (clarifies submission element for show-of-authority seizures)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (nonmoving party must show more than metaphysical doubt to defeat summary judgment)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (Saucier sequence is discretionary)