James Horton v. Frank Pobjecky
883 F.3d 941
7th Cir.2018Background
- Four teenagers attempted an armed robbery at Marie’s Pizza; one, Coates, carried a revolver and threatened employees and an off-duty deputy, Frank Pobjecky. The incident lasted ~36 seconds on surveillance video.
- A struggle over guns occurred off-camera; Tarara (manager) and Pobjecky obtained control of guns at different points. Michael Sago (16) acted as a lookout, was unarmed, and did not engage in the gun struggle.
- Pobjecky fired multiple shots during the melee, shooting and killing Michael with three shots to his back as Michael crawled toward the exit. Pobjecky did not identify himself or give warnings before firing.
- Horton, administrator of Michael’s estate, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (excessive force and failure to provide medical care), brought a Monell claim against the Sheriff, and asserted state wrongful-death/survival claims.
- The district court granted summary judgment for defendants; the Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding Pobjecky’s use of deadly force and his post-shooting conduct were objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Horton) | Defendant's Argument (Pobjecky/County) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Excessive force (§ 1983) | Shooting Michael (unarmed, crawling away) was unreasonable; no warning; Michael posed no imminent threat | Pobjecky reasonably believed multiple suspects were armed and posed imminent danger; split-second decision under duress justified deadly force | Summary judgment for defendants; force was objectively reasonable |
| Failure to provide medical care (§ 1983) | Pobjecky delayed/failed to summon or provide timely aid; earlier action could have saved Michael | Pobjecky secured scene, locked door, summoned 911; it was unsafe to venture out with empty gun; balancing of interests justified delay | Summary judgment for defendants; response was objectively reasonable |
| Monell municipal liability | Sheriff’s policies/customs caused constitutional violations | No underlying constitutional violation by officer, so no municipal liability | Affirmed summary judgment for Sheriff |
| State-law wrongful death / survival claims (Illinois) | Wrongful death and survival claims against officer and Sheriff | Officer and Sheriff entitled to immunity under IL Tort Immunity Act absent willful/wanton conduct | Summary judgment for defendants; actions not willful and wanton; immunity applies |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (video may resolve factual disputes on summary judgment)
- Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (use of deadly force to prevent escape / when suspect poses threat)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (objective reasonableness standard for excessive force)
- County of Los Angeles v. Mendez, 137 S. Ct. 1539 (consider information known to officer at time)
- Ford v. Childers, 855 F.2d 1271 (7th Cir.) (deadly force reasonable when officer believes suspect committed felony involving threat of deadly force)
- Sherrod v. Berry, 856 F.2d 802 (7th Cir.) (officer may use deadly force to defend self/others)
- Plakas v. Drinski, 19 F.3d 1143 (7th Cir.) (not required to use less-deadly alternative if deadly force is reasonable)
- Ortiz v. City of Chicago, 656 F.3d 523 (7th Cir.) (four-factor test for officer response to arrestee’s medical needs)
- Sallenger v. City of Springfield, 630 F.3d 499 (7th Cir.) (Fourth Amendment reasonableness for medical care)