John Raines, III v. Andrew Burningham
883 F.3d 1071
| 8th Cir. | 2018Background
- Police responded to a March 10, 2013 911 report of a stabbing and robbery; officers found John Raines IV outside an apartment holding a knife.
- Multiple officers ordered Raines to drop the knife; he waved it and shifted his weight but the encounter lasted under two minutes.
- Officer Hanson approached with a taser while Detective Cameron covered; at roughly the same time, three other officers fired a total of 21 shots. Raines was hit 4 times and is now paralyzed from the waist down.
- Officers Burningham, Burroughs, and Culliford moved for summary judgment asserting qualified immunity, claiming Raines made an aggressive movement toward Officer Hanson that justified deadly force.
- The district court denied qualified immunity, finding a genuine factual dispute about whether Raines posed a significant threat when shot (video evidence inconclusive).
- The officers appealed the denial of qualified immunity; the Eighth Circuit dismissed the interlocutory appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the denial rested on a genuine factual dispute the court could not resolve on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officers' use of deadly force violated the Fourth Amendment | Raines did not pose an immediate threat; videos show no aggressive advance before shooting | Officers reasonably believed Raines advanced on Officer Hanson and posed a lethal threat | Fact dispute exists whether Raines advanced; cannot resolve on interlocutory appeal |
| Whether denial of qualified immunity is immediately appealable | N/A (argues underlying conduct not justified) | Qualified immunity denial is appealable as a matter of law | Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because denial rested on genuine factual dispute |
| Whether video evidence conclusively shows the suspect’s movement | Video shows Raines continuing same movements, undermining officers’ claim of a sudden aggressive advance | Officers contend slow-motion video supports their account of an advance | Video is inconclusive; not like Scott v. Harris; dispute remains material |
| Whether the record plainly forecloses the district court’s finding of a material factual dispute | N/A | Defendants urged record forecloses dispute so appellate review can proceed | Court found record does not plainly foreclose dispute; interlocutory review inappropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Scott v. Harris, [citation="550 U.S. 372"] (video can resolve factual disputes when it is irrefutable)
- Johnson v. Jones, [citation="515 U.S. 304"] (limits interlocutory appeals of denials of qualified immunity when based on disputed facts)
- Mallak v. City of Baxter, [citation="823 F.3d 441"] (Eighth Circuit on jurisdictional limits for interlocutory qualified immunity appeals)
- Franklin ex rel. Franklin v. Peterson, [citation="878 F.3d 631"] (distinguishes legal review of clear-established-law question from factual dispute resolution)
- Estate of Morgan v. Cook, [citation="686 F.3d 494"] (standard for evaluating reasonableness of force under the Fourth Amendment)
- Tennessee v. Garner, [citation="471 U.S. 1"] (deadly force is unreasonable when suspect poses no immediate threat to officers or others)