Jason Cunningham v. Shelby Cnty., Tenn.
994 F.3d 761
| 6th Cir. | 2021Background
- On March 17, 2017, Nancy Lewellyn called 911 saying she was suicidal, armed with a gun, and would kill anyone who came to her house; deputies Justin Jayroe, Robert Paschal, and Marvin Wiggins responded.
- Each deputy’s cruiser recorded dashcam video; Lewellyn walked out holding what looked like a .45 but was later found to be a BB gun.
- Deputies shouted at Lewellyn as she walked toward a parked sedan with her right arm extended holding the gun; within about eleven seconds of her leaving the house deputies fired a total of ten shots, eight striking her.
- Lewellyn had placed the BB gun on the car hood (not visible to deputies); she died at the scene.
- The estate sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for excessive force; the district court denied deputies’ summary judgment motion based on qualified immunity, relying in part on stop-action “screen shots” from the dashcam videos.
- The Sixth Circuit reviewed de novo, focused on whether (1) a constitutional violation occurred and (2) the right was clearly established, and considered the dashcam footage as controlling where it contradicted other versions of events.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Qualified immunity for deadly force | Lewellyn did not pose an imminent threat; factual disputes exist about whether she pointed the gun at officers, so immunity should be denied | Deputies reasonably believed Lewellyn posed an immediate threat based on her conduct and the dispatch warning; therefore immunity applies | Grant qualified immunity — plaintiff failed to show the law was clearly established that the deputies’ conduct was unlawful |
| Use of dashcam "screen shots" at summary judgment | Screen shots show disputed material facts about the gun’s direction; district court properly identified genuine issues | Relying on stop-action frames is hindsight; courts must view video in real time from officer’s perspective | District court erred to rely on screen shots; assessing reasonableness must avoid 20/20 hindsight and consider the video in context |
| Whether existing precedent clearly established unlawfulness | Prior Sixth Circuit cases (King, Brandenburg, Dickerson) show lethal force unlawful where no imminent threat | Those cases involved factual disputes and no controlling videotape; they do not squarely govern these facts | Precedent did not place the constitutional question beyond debate here; law not clearly established |
| Proper fact-viewing rule when video exists | Facts should be viewed in favor of nonmoving party | When video blatantly contradicts a party’s version, courts should view the facts as depicted by the video | Video controls; courts need not credit versions contradicted by contemporaneous dashcam footage |
Key Cases Cited
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007) (when video blatantly contradicts a party’s account, courts may view facts as shown on tape)
- White v. Pauly, 137 S. Ct. 548 (2017) (clearly established law must be particularized to the facts)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (use-of-force claims judged under objective reasonableness from officer’s perspective)
- Kisela v. Hughes, 138 S. Ct. 1148 (2018) (requirements for clearly established law in excessive-force cases)
- King v. Taylor, 694 F.3d 650 (6th Cir. 2012) (denial of immunity where factual disputes about whether victim pointed a gun; distinguished here because no videotape)
- Brandenburg v. Cureton, 882 F.2d 211 (6th Cir. 1989) (officer shot armed suspect who fired weapon; factual disputes precluded immunity)
- Dickerson v. McClellan, 101 F.3d 1151 (6th Cir. 1996) (similar; factual disputes about imminent threat)
- Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (2011) (qualified immunity two-prong framework)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (courts may decide qualified-immunity prongs in either order)
- Rudlaff v. Gillispie, 791 F.3d 638 (6th Cir. 2015) (dashcam/video evidence governs over contradictory testimony)