Jeanine Liberti v. City of Scottsdale, 18-16938

Dylan Liberti, 24, was shot and killed by Officer Wilmer Fernandez‑Kafati after an encounter with Officer Marjorie Bailey at an outdoor Scottsdale shopping center during a welfare check following a hang‑up 911 call.
A passerby and restaurant staff reported Dylan “looked weird” but gave no indication he was dangerous; officers asked Dylan to sit and to answer questions; he answered coherently but refused to sit.
Officer Bailey grabbed Dylan’s elbow to force him to sit on hot concrete; Dylan pulled away and fled. Officers chased, found Dylan with a small knife, ordered him to drop it, and Officer Bailey deployed a Taser which was ineffective.
Officer Fernandez‑Kafati shot and killed Dylan as he moved with the knife; Plaintiffs (his parents) sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (excessive/deadly force), and asserted state negligence and wrongful‑death claims.
The district court granted summary judgment for defendants on the § 1983 claim (qualified immunity) and on state claims (based on counsel’s alleged concession); the Ninth Circuit affirmed—majority on qualified immunity and state‑law negligence, with Judge Bennett partially dissenting and urging remand on wrongful‑death claims alleging battery/false arrest.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Qualified immunity for §1983 excessive/deadly force	Officers used unconstitutional excessive and deadly force in violation of the Fourth Amendment	Officers acted reasonably under the circumstances and are entitled to qualified immunity because the right was not clearly established	Affirmed: qualified immunity bars §1983 claim
Whether the Fourth Amendment right was "clearly established"	The officers had fair notice their conduct violated the Fourth Amendment	No controlling precedent put officers on fair and clear notice; cannot define right at high generality	Held for defendants: no clearly established precedent (Kisela/Saucier framework)
Viability of Arizona negligence claims	Negligence claim can proceed alongside §1983 claims	Arizona law bars negligence claims based on intentional use of force or an officer’s evaluation to use force	Held for defendants: negligence claims fail under Arizona law (Ryan v. Napier)
Wrongful‑death liability (battery / false arrest as wrongful act)	Bailey’s initial grab forcing Dylan to sit could be battery/false arrest and proximately caused the chase, taser use, shooting, and death	Initial contact and subsequent force were reasonable; no wrongful acts; summary judgment proper	Majority: affirmed summary judgment on wrongful‑death claims; Judge Bennett dissented, would have remanded for trial on battery/false arrest theories

Thompson v. Rahr, 885 F.3d 582 (9th Cir. 2018) (qualified immunity two‑part framework)
Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001) (sequence and methodology for qualified immunity analysis)
Kisela v. Hughes, 138 S. Ct. 1148 (2018) (must not define clearly established law at high generality)
Ryan v. Napier, 425 P.3d 230 (Ariz. 2018) (Arizona law bars negligence claims based on intentional use of force or an officer’s evaluation to use force)
Walsh v. Advanced Cardiac Specialists Chartered, 273 P.3d 645 (Ariz. 2012) (wrongful‑death statute causation/liability framework)
Torrez v. Knowlton, 73 P.3d 1285 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003) (false arrest tort elements)
State v. Keener, 75 P.3d 119 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003) (probable cause defined for detention/arrest)