Lewis v. City of Edmond, 48 F.4th 1193

On April 29, 2019, Isaiah Lewis, nude, fled police, broke through a residence’s front door, and was later seen by officers inside the home.
Sergeant Milo Box confronted Lewis in the living room, deployed a taser multiple times without effect, and was observed by Officer Denton Scherman being "pummelled" by Lewis.
Box disappeared from Scherman’s sight; Lewis then turned toward Scherman and advanced in a confined entry/hallway, swinging his arms in a ‘‘windmill’’ motion.
Scherman fired four shots (a fifth missed); Lewis died from gunshot wounds to face, groin, and both thighs.
The district court found the multiple post‑first‑shot shootings were objectively unreasonable and violated the Fourth Amendment; Scherman does not dispute that the district‑court‑recited facts, viewed for summary judgment, suffice to show a violation.
Scherman appealed the denial of qualified immunity; the Tenth Circuit assumed (without deciding) a constitutional violation but reversed on the separate question whether the law was "clearly established."

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Scherman's multiple shots violated the Fourth Amendment (excessive force)	Lewis’s estate: shots after the threat had passed were excessive	Scherman: does not dispute the district‑court facts would show a violation for summary‑judgment purposes	District court found force was objectively unreasonable; on appeal the court assumed the facts suffice to show a violation but did not decide anew
Whether the law was clearly established (qualified immunity)	Estate: prior precedent put officers on notice that additional shots after threat subsided are unconstitutional	Scherman: no Supreme Court or Tenth Circuit decision ‘‘squarely governs’’ these facts; not beyond debate; split‑second, confined‑space context matters	Tenth Circuit reversed: law was not clearly established as of Apr. 29, 2019; Scherman entitled to qualified immunity and judgment should be entered for him

Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985) (deadly force permissible only if suspect poses an immediate threat to officer or others)
Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (Fourth Amendment excessive‑force claims governed by objective‑reasonableness standard)
Brosseau v. Haugen, 543 U.S. 194 (2004) (clearly‑established inquiry must be context‑specific)
Plumhoff v. Rickard, 572 U.S. 765 (2014) (qualified immunity requires that law be clear enough that every reasonable officer would understand the conduct was unlawful)
Ashcroft v. al‑Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (2011) (clearly established law requires more than general statements)
District of Columbia v. Wesby, 138 S. Ct. 577 (2018) (need controlling authority or robust consensus; law must place the constitutional question beyond debate)
Kisela v. Hughes, 138 S. Ct. 1148 (2018) (officers entitled to qualified immunity unless prior decisions ‘‘squarely govern’’ the specific facts)
Mullenix v. Luna, 577 U.S. 7 (2015) (per curiam) (emphasizes specificity in clearly‑established analysis)
Estate of Ceballos v. Husk, 919 F.3d 1204 (10th Cir. 2019) (Tenth Circuit decision relied on by district court but factually distinguishable)
Allen v. Muskogee, 119 F.3d 837 (10th Cir. 1997) (officer conduct that recklessly creates need for lethal force can preclude immunity)