Marjorie Shepherd v. City of Shreveport
920 F.3d 278
5th Cir.2019Background
- In Oct. 2013, Cpl. Tucker responded to a 911 call; firefighters encountered William Shepherd holding a knife and retreated; a caller feared a violent subject was inside the home.
- Tucker arrived as the subject (Shepherd) stood in the yard with an 8" knife; firefighters identified Shepherd as the knife-holder and said someone was inside the house.
- Tucker ordered Shepherd to get down and to get back; Shepherd ignored commands, cursed, moved toward the house/driveway carrying the knife, and advanced toward Tucker as Tucker backed downhill with a shotgun pointed at him.
- Body/dash camera recorded the ~two-minute encounter and the final advance; Tucker fired one shot, killing Shepherd at approximately ten feet away (disputed on appeal but camera corroborated close distance).
- Shepherd’s mother sued Tucker and the City under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (excessive force) and under Louisiana tort law; district court granted summary judgment for defendants, and denied plaintiff’s motion to supplement her opposition brief.
- On appeal, the Fifth Circuit affirmed: it held Tucker’s use of deadly force reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, alternatively granted qualified immunity, rejected distinct state-law negligence theories, and found no abuse of discretion in denying supplemental briefing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Excessive force (§ 1983) | Tucker unreasonably used deadly force; factual disputes (distance, manner of approach, knife position) preclude summary judgment | Video and record show Shepherd advanced with a knife, ignored commands, and was ~10 feet away; force was reasonable | Use of deadly force was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment; no genuine issue of material fact |
| Qualified immunity | Right to be free from deadly force was clearly established so immunity unavailable | Case law did not clearly establish that shooting a person advancing with a knife while ignoring commands was unconstitutional | Tucker entitled to qualified immunity in any event; precedent did not clearly establish the law |
| State-law excessive force & negligence | Louisiana analysis differs from federal and negligence claims against firefighters/dispatch presented distinct triable issues | Louisiana excessive-force inquiry mirrors federal reasonableness; negligence theories were not pleaded timely or with sufficient notice | State-law excessive-force claim fails for same reasons as § 1983; negligence claims were not properly raised and would not change result |
| Denial of motion to supplement opposition brief | Supplement would elaborate expert opinions and add negligence theories; district court abused discretion | Plaintiff gave no adequate reason for late supplementation; prejudice and scheduling concerns justified denial | No abuse of discretion; Rule 16(b) "good cause" factors weigh against supplementation |
Key Cases Cited
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (video evidence can discredit eyewitness account and be used to view facts as depicted on tape)
- Kisela v. Hughes, 138 S. Ct. 1148 (use-of-force law requires specificity; not clearly established where officer shoots person approaching with knife)
- Mullenix v. Luna, 136 S. Ct. 305 (courts must avoid defining clearly established rights at high level of generality)
- Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (clearly established law standard for qualified immunity requires precedent placing question beyond debate)
- Harris v. Serpas, 745 F.3d 767 (5th Cir.) (elements and temporal focus of § 1983 excessive-force inquiry)
- Mace v. City of Palestine, 333 F.3d 621 (5th Cir.) (deadly force reasonable when officer has reason to believe suspect poses serious threat)
- Delville v. Marcantel, 567 F.3d 156 (5th Cir.) (Louisiana excessive-force tort mirrors federal Fourth Amendment reasonableness test)