Hensley v. Suttles
167 F. Supp. 3d 753
W.D.N.C.2016Background
- On August 9, 2012, Haywood County Deputies Lt. Michael Price and Deputy Keith Beasley responded to a civil disturbance at David Hensley’s home; Hensley obtained a pistol from a gun safe and left the porch while his two daughters watched.
- The daughters forecasted evidence that Hensley walked across his yard with his arms at his sides (gun by his side), mouthed “I love you” to one daughter, and did not point the gun at officers; deputies fired without issuing verbal commands and continued firing after Hensley was struck.
- The deputies’ forecasted evidence asserted Hensley pointed the pistol at deputies and fanned the hammer, creating an immediate threat; the parties’ accounts sharply conflict.
- Plaintiffs brought claims including § 1983 excessive force, North Carolina constitutional claims (later abandoned), assault, negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress, wrongful death, claims against sureties, and punitive damages.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment asserting qualified immunity and public official immunity; plaintiffs conceded several claims and some defendants were dismissed; remaining defendants are Price and Beasley and the surety companies.
- The court applied the qualified immunity framework, viewing factual disputes in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, and denied summary judgment on several federal and state tort claims while granting summary judgment on the IIED claim and certain other conceded claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether deputies violated Fourth Amendment by using deadly force (§ 1983) | Deputiffs (Hensley) posed no immediate threat; both arms were down and gun at his side — killing was excessive | Officers acted reasonably under totality of circumstances and had probable cause to believe Hensley was an imminent threat; qualified immunity applies | Denied summary judgment: factual view favoring plaintiffs could support excessive force and defeat qualified immunity |
| Assault (daughters as bystanders via transferred intent) | Shooting toward porch put daughters in imminent fear; transferred intent from shooting decedent supports assault | Use of force was objectively reasonable; qualified immunity/public official immunity bars claim | Denied summary judgment: genuine factual disputes permit assault claim to proceed |
| Negligent infliction of emotional distress & Wrongful death | Deputies negligently/killed Hensley causing foreseeable severe emotional harm to daughters; wrongful death follows | Public official immunity shields against mere negligence | Denied summary judgment: plaintiffs’ forecast could show malice/violation of clearly established rights, defeating immunity |
| Intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) | Witnessing the brutal killing of their father by deputies was extreme and caused severe distress | Conduct not "extreme and outrageous" as required; no evidence deputies intended to terrorize daughters | Granted summary judgment for defendants: plaintiffs failed to show deputies intended to inflict severe emotional distress or that conduct met the high IIED standard |
Key Cases Cited
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (qualified immunity two-step framework)
- Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985) (deadly force as a seizure governed by Fourth Amendment; justified only if probable cause that suspect poses serious threat)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (use excessive force claims analyzed under Fourth Amendment objective reasonableness)
- Sigman v. Town of Chapel Hill, 161 F.3d 782 (4th Cir. 1998) (totality of circumstances may justify deadly force where suspect previously threatened officers)
- Maciariello v. Sumner, 973 F.2d 295 (4th Cir. 1992) (qualified immunity protects officers for reasonable mistakes in gray areas)
- United States v. Robinson, 814 F.3d 201 (4th Cir. 2016) (possession of a firearm alone does not necessarily show dangerousness)
- Dickens v. Puryear, 302 N.C. 437 (1981) (North Carolina standard and examples of extreme and outrageous conduct for IIED)
- Bailey v. Gift, 135 N.C. App. 119 (1999) (elements of wrongful death claim under North Carolina law)