Marietta Robinson v. Sarah Pezzat
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 5965
| D.C. Cir. | 2016Background
- Police executed a search warrant at Marietta Robinson’s home; her 13-year-old dog Wrinkles was present and placed in a bathroom visible from the entryway.
- Officer Sarah Pezzat opened the bathroom door with gun drawn and then shot Wrinkles; Robinson testifies Wrinkles was lying down and was shot before it moved; Pezzat and other officers testify the dog charged and bit Pezzat before she fired.
- Officer Richard McLeod fired multiple rounds seconds later; officers covered the dog with a sheet and left substantial blood and property damage in the house.
- Robinson sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and D.C. law claiming Fourth Amendment unlawful seizure (killing of the dog) and unreasonable property damage; district court granted summary judgment for defendants.
- The district court found no genuine dispute that the dog posed an imminent threat and also rejected Monell failure-to-train allegations; Robinson appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Pezzat’s shooting of Wrinkles was an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment | Robinson: her sworn testimony raises a genuine dispute that Wrinkles was lying down and posed no imminent threat when Pezzat shot | District: Robinson's testimony is uncorroborated and contradicted by other evidence that the dog charged and bit Pezzat | Reversed as to Pezzat — the court must credit Robinson’s testimony at summary judgment; a jury could find Pezzat unreasonable |
| Whether McLeod’s subsequent shooting was unreasonable | Robinson: even McLeod’s shots were excessive given the dog’s conduct | District: Wrinkles had bitten Pezzat and posed ongoing imminent danger seconds later | Affirmed as to McLeod — split-second judgment reasonable given prior bite and rapidly evolving threat |
| Whether property damage was an unreasonable Fourth Amendment seizure or search | Robinson: property damage flowed from an unreasonable seizure and some destruction was independent and excessive | District: damage was incident to a reasonable seizure/search under the warrant | Reversed as to property claims tied to Pezzat’s shooting; district court must reassess property-damage claims on remand |
| Whether the District is liable under Monell for failure to train regarding dogs during searches | Robinson: MPD training was inadequate and prior dog-shooting reports show deliberate indifference | District: MPD policies and training govern deadly force and reports do not show a pattern of unconstitutional shootings | Affirmed as to the District — training/policy evidence insufficient to show deliberate indifference or a pattern of unconstitutional conduct |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard and role of credibility)
- Tolan v. Cotton, 134 S. Ct. 1861 (courts must credit nonmovant’s evidence at summary judgment and not resolve credibility)
- Viilo v. Eyre, 547 F.3d 707 (killing a companion dog is a Fourth Amendment seizure; deadly force reasonable only for immediate danger)
- Arrington v. United States, 473 F.3d 329 (conflicting sworn statements can defeat summary judgment)
- Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S. 51 (Monell deliberate-indifference standard for failure to train)
- City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378 (limits on failure-to-train liability; need for pattern except in rare circumstances)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (rare instance where video so undermines testimony that summary judgment is appropriate)