Jamison v. Metz, 541 F. App'x 15

Jamison, proceeding pro se, sued the City Defendants under §1983 for excessive force during an arrest, and for assault and battery under New York law, plus a due process claim of deliberate indifference by Walsh.
The district court granted summary judgment to MacDerment on Fourth Amendment and assault claims and granted summary judgment to Davis and Metz on the same claims, based on its view of undisputed material facts.
Jamison argued there were genuine disputes of material fact, including his surrender during the shooting and Brown’s sworn affidavit supporting his version.
The district court treated Jamison’s verified complaint and Brown’s affidavit as properly before it; Jamison’s noncompliance with Local Rule 7.1 was deemed non-dispositive.
The court held that Jamison could rely on his verified complaint as an affidavit for summary judgment purposes, provided it met Rule 56 requirements.
The Second Circuit reviewed de novo and vacated and remanded as to the Fourth Amendment and state-law battery claims against Davis and Metz, while affirming the Walsh due process judgment and MacDerment’s summary judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether summary judgment on Fourth Amendment and battery claims against Davis and Metz was proper	Jamison contends genuine disputes preclude summary judgment	City Defendants assert no material disputes and proper justification	Vacated summary judgment; genuine disputes remain
Whether deadly force was justified given Jamison’s surrender	Jamison’s version shows surrender; force was unlawful	Officers acted under probable cause and reasonable belief of threat	Remanded for further proceedings on the factual dispute
Whether Walsh was deliberately indifferent to Jamison’s medical needs	Jamison argues supervision caused indifference	Medical records show ongoing treatment; no deliberate indifference	Affirmed district court’s summary judgment for Walsh
Whether MacDerment is entitled to summary judgment	Jamison disputes MacDerment’s lack of pursuit and firing	MacDerment did not use force against Jamison per his statement	Affirmed summary judgment for MacDerment on Fourth Amendment and battery claims

Tracy v. Freshwater, 623 F.3d 90 (2d Cir. 2010) (district court properly construed as Fourth Amendment claim)
Salim v. Proulx, 93 F.3d 86 (2d Cir. 1996) (analysis of officer’s split-second decision to use force)
Cowan ex rel. Estate of Cooper v. Breen, 352 F.3d 756 (2d Cir. 2003) (deadly force objective reasonableness standard)
Hemphill v. Schott, 141 F.3d 412 (2d Cir. 1998) (surrendered suspect and qualified immunity implications)
Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (objective reasonableness under Fourth Amendment for force)
Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (qualified immunity protection when rights not clearly established)
Nimely v. City of New York, 414 F.3d 381 (2d Cir. 2005) (battery analysis and §35.30(1) considerations)
Colon v. Coughlin, 58 F.3d 865 (2d Cir. 1995) (verified complaint treated as affidavit for summary judgment)
Franco v. Kelly, 854 F.2d 584 (2d Cir. 1988) (affidavit requirements for summary judgment affidavits)
City of Revere v. Massachusetts Gen. Hosp., 463 U.S. 239 (1983) (Fourteenth Amendment due process vs. Eighth Amendment in pretrial detention)