Fortunati v. State of Vermont, 503 F. App'x 78

Robert Fortunati, as administrator of Joseph Fortunati’s estate, sued Vermont officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for excessive force in Joseph’s fatal shooting during an attempted custody, and his family sued for false arrest at the scene.
District court granted summary judgment in favor defendants on qualified immunity for the fatal shooting and related claims.
Court reviews de novo whether a qualified-immunity defense applies and whether rights were clearly established.
Evidence centered on whether Joseph drew or reached for a gun immediately before officers fired, and on prior beanbag rounds used by officers.
Plaintiffs argued policies and training prohibited such force; defendants argued force was objectively reasonable under the circumstances.
Court affirmed, holding no genuine material factual disputes on credibility and that officers’ actions were objectively reasonable; false-arrest claims were also deemed objectively reasonable.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the use of deadly force reasonable under the Fourth Amendment?	Fortunati contends Joseph threatened with a weapon just before the shot.	Defendants contend the threat justified deadly force under Garner and related standards.	No genuine dispute; use of force reasonable; qualified immunity applies.
Were the prior beanbag rounds by Hill and Snetsinger objectively reasonable?	Beanbag use violated Joseph’s rights under policy and Training Key.	Policy allowed non-deadly force; reasonable under totality of circumstances.	Objectively reasonable; no Fourth Amendment violation.
Does deploying a SWAT-type team violate a clearly established right?	Deployment of a SWAT team could constitute excessive force.	No clearly established right against SWAT deployment exists in this Circuit.	No clearly established right found; qualified immunity applied to Protzman and Goodell.
Were Mark and Susan Fortunati detained as an arrest or permissible in the circumstances?	Detention was an arrest and violated rights.	Detention was objectively reasonable given danger and scene control; not an arrest.	Detention reasonable; no Fourth Amendment violation; qualified immunity.
Did Plaintiffs adequately brief state-law claims?	State-law claims were briefed and should remain.	State-law claims were waived for lack of briefing.	Plaintiffs waived state-law arguments.

Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1985) (excessive force when suspect threatens with weapon)
Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (U.S. 2009) (clearly established inquiry in qualified immunity)
X-Men Sec., Inc. v. Pataki, 196 F.3d 56 (2d Cir. 1999) (objective reasonableness standard for immunity decisions)
Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (U.S. 1987) (objective reasonableness in qualified-immunity analysis)
Taravella v. Town of Wolcott, 599 F.3d 129 (2d Cir. 2010) (reasonable of actions under qualified immunity; totality of circumstances)
Manganiello v. City of New York, 612 F.3d 149 (2d Cir. 2010) (officers' reasonable disagreement on legality of action)
Walczyk v. Rio, 496 F.3d 139 (2d Cir. 2007) (credibility and reasonableness considerations in force decisions)
United States v. Vargas, 369 F.3d 98 (2d Cir. 2004) (dangerous situation allows greater means of control during encounters)
United States v. Alexander, 907 F.2d 269 (2d Cir. 1990) (dangerous scenarios permit heightened force in stop situations)
Estate of Smith v. Marasco, 430 F.3d 140 (3d Cir. 2005) (SWAT decisions and excessive-force questions in other circuits)
Salim v. Proulx, 93 F.3d 86 (2d Cir. 1996) (pre-seizure conduct and Fourth Amendment scrutiny)
Carter v. Buscher, 973 F.2d 1328 (7th Cir. 1992) (pre-seizure conduct not subject to Fourth Amendment scrutiny)