Henderson v. City of Woodbury, 233 F. Supp. 3d 723

Around 1:09 a.m., Woodbury police received an open 911 call from the Red Roof Inn reporting garbled voices and a possible knife altercation; dispatch indicated the location and that it might be the Inn.
Officers Krech and Bauer looked into Room 217 and observed a man (Ballinger) point a handgun at Bauer’s head; they retreated to a breezeway and called for backup and SWAT.
A gunshot sounded and a different man, Mark Henderson, ran from Room 217 toward the officers; officers shouted commands to drop/get on the ground and then fired within seconds.
Mark continued toward the officers, then went face-down on a balcony with his right hand concealed beneath his torso; officers ordered him to show his hands and fired additional rounds until his right hand was visible.
Ballinger (not Mark) later was found to have fired the shot heard by officers; Mark was unarmed and died of multiple gunshot wounds. Plaintiffs sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state wrongful-death/vicarious liability theories.
The district court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment, holding the officers were entitled to qualified immunity as their use of deadly force was objectively reasonable under the circumstances; official immunity barred state-law claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether officers used excessive (deadly) force in violation of the Fourth Amendment	Henderson was an unarmed hostage/innocent who posed no deadly threat; force was unreasonable	Officers reasonably perceived an imminent deadly threat (gun pointed in room; gunshot; man sprinting at officers and ignoring commands)	Use of force reasonable; qualified immunity applies
Whether officers failed to warn or give opportunity to comply before shooting	Officers should have warned/afforded opportunity given possibility Mark was a fleeing hostage	Warnings not required or feasible during split-second, rapidly evolving threat	No duty to delay or warn where infeasible; conduct reasonable
Whether second volley (after Mark was on ground) was excessive	Once on the ground and appearing to comply, further shooting was unnecessary	Officers could not see right hand beneath torso and reasonably feared he retained a weapon and could roll and shoot	Second volley reasonable given continuing perceived threat; qualified immunity applies
Whether official/vicarious immunity bars state wrongful-death and vicarious-liability claims	Conduct was willful or malicious, so immunity should not apply	Use of force was discretionary and not willful/malicious; official immunity applies	Official immunity applies to officers; City enjoys vicarious immunity

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard)
Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (use-of-force reasonableness framework)
Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (deadly force and seizure standards)
Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (qualified immunity two-step analysis)
Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (qualified immunity and split-second judgments)
Loch v. City of Litchfield, 689 F.3d 961 (Eighth Circuit on reasonable belief of threat)
McLenagan v. Karnes, 27 F.3d 1002 (qualified immunity where officer reasonably believed suspect armed)
LaCross v. City of Duluth, 713 F.3d 1155 (qualified-immunity principles)