Glenn v. Washington County
673 F.3d 864
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- Eighteen-year-old Lukus Glenn was shot and killed by Washington County police officers in his driveway after his mother called 911 for help with a distressed, intoxicated Lukus.
- Lukus held a pocketknife to his neck and threatened self-harm; officers arrived, beanbag shotgun fired, then Lukus was fatally shot eight times with service weapons within four minutes.
- Lukus’ mother filed a § 1983 claim for excessive force and a state-law wrongful-death claim; the district court granted summary judgment for defendants on § 1983 claim.
- The court concluded the officers’ use of force did not violate the Fourth Amendment and granted qualified immunity; the plaintiff appeals.
- The panel acknowledges the corrected petition for rehearing is denied and the changes to the amended opinion are non-substantive.
- On review, the court reverses and remands for trial, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding reasonableness of force and potential Monell and state-law implications.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the beanbag shotgun use violated the Fourth Amendment | Glenn argues force was excessive given Lukus’ static position and lack of immediate threat | Officers acted to prevent suicide and protect others, using reasonable force under Graham factors | Questions of fact preclude summary judgment on reasonableness |
| Whether shooting Lukus with lethal force after beanbag rounds was reasonable | Lukus moved only to seek cover; movement was not towards threatening others | Lukus’ movement toward the house and broken door support deadly-force need | Questions of fact preclude summary judgment on lethal-force reasonableness |
| Whether Washington County can be held liable under Monell for unconstitutional conduct | Monell claim should survive if constitutional violation occurred | Monell requires underlying constitutional violation or ratification; depends on § 1983 ruling | Remanded to address Monell claim after resolution of constitutional issue |
| Whether state-law wrongful-death claim should be resolved on summary judgment | State-law liability broader; not necessarily coextensive with § 1983 | Oregon justification statutes may bar state claims if federal reasonableness applies | Remanded; reversal of § 1983 ruling necessitates reconsideration of state-law claim |
| Whether taser or other less intrusive means could have precluded the beanbag use | Taser could have been used effectively; experts favor taser as feasible option | Less intrusive options are fact-dependent and not required when within reasonable range | Questions of fact about feasibility and availability keep issue for trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (Supreme Court 1989) (balances intrusion vs. government interests; reasonableness from officer's perspective)
- Deorle v. Rutherford, 272 F.3d 1272 (9th Cir. 2001) (beanbag risks; use only when strong governmental interest)
- Bryan v. MacPherson, 630 F.3d 805 (9th Cir. 2010) (factors for reasonable force; includes alternatives and ED/EG contexts)
- Blanford v. Sacramento Cnty., 406 F.3d 1110 (9th Cir. 2005) (context-specific analysis when armed suspects vs. threat level)
- Long v. City & County of Honolulu, 511 F.3d 901 (9th Cir. 2007) (armed suspect comparisons; context-specific assessments of force)
- Smith v. City of Hemet, 394 F.3d 689 (9th Cir. 2005) (credibility and disputed facts in excessive-force cases; summary judgment disfavored)
- Espinosa v. City & Cnty. of S.F., 598 F.3d 528 (9th Cir. 2010) (reaffirms need for factual disputes in qualified-immunity review)
- Billington v. Smith, 292 F.3d 1177 (9th Cir. 2002) (provocation rule; liability for deadly force may follow unlawful escalation)
- Mattos v. Agarano, 661 F.3d 433 (9th Cir. 2011) (en banc; use of Graham factors; taser reasonableness considerations)