Jacobi Malone v. Robert Hinman, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 2149

In July 2011, Malone (18) intervened in a disturbance in downtown Little Rock; a bystander produced a pistol, which discharged during Malone’s attempt to disarm him. Malone ended up with the gun and began running as the crowd scattered.
Officer Hinman, patrolling nearby on a bicycle, heard gunfire, saw the crowd disperse, observed Malone fleeing with the gun toward other officers/people, yelled “stop,” and fired multiple rounds, striking Malone and paralyzing him.
Witness accounts differed on whether Malone fired additional shots while holding the gun and whether Malone turned to aim at officers; all agree Malone fled with the gun when Hinman shot him and was running toward others (including Officer Montgomery) and was ~2–3 feet from Montgomery when hit.
Malone sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for excessive force (Fourth Amendment), alleged a Monell claim against the Chief and City for a custom of excessive force, and pleaded state assault/battery; defendants moved for summary judgment.
The district court granted summary judgment to Officer Hinman (qualified immunity) and to Chief Thomas and the City (no Monell proof); this appeal challenges both rulings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Hinman used excessive (deadly) force in violation of the Fourth Amendment	Malone: factual disputes (whether Hinman knew someone was injured, whether Malone fired into the crowd, whether Malone turned toward Hinman) preclude summary judgment and show force was excessive	Hinman: heard shots, saw Malone flee with a gun toward other people/officers, warned Malone, and reasonably perceived a threat to others—entitled to qualified immunity	Court: No genuine dispute on material facts that matter; viewed from reasonable-officer perspective, Hinman had probable cause to believe Malone posed a threat to others; qualified immunity affirmed
Whether Chief/City are liable under Monell for a widespread custom of excessive force	Malone: alleged concealment/alteration of evidence and inadequate investigation/discipline show a persistent custom and deliberate indifference	Chief/City: no underlying constitutional violation by Hinman; adequate training/investigation; no proof of a persistent custom	Court: Because no constitutional violation by Hinman, Monell liability cannot attach; summary judgment for Chief/City affirmed

Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (objective-reasonableness standard for use of force)
Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (deadly force permissible if officer has probable cause to believe suspect poses serious threat)
Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (municipal liability requires a policy/custom causing constitutional tort)
City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378 (failure-to-train standard and deliberate indifference)
Loch v. City of Litchfield, 689 F.3d 961 (8th Cir.) (summary judgment/qualified immunity framework in excessive-force cases)
Craighead v. Lee, 399 F.3d 954 (8th Cir.) (Fourth Amendment objective-reasonableness for deadly force)
Tlamka v. Serrell, 244 F.3d 628 (8th Cir.) (predicate facts establish reasonableness as a question of law)