Martinez v. Avondale, City of
2:12-cv-01837
D. Ariz.Jan 16, 2014Background
- This is a § 1983 and state-law wrongful detention/false imprisonment action arising from the October 28, 2011 fatal shooting of Gregory Martinez Jr. by Avondale Officer Kevin Sapp after a 9-1-1 domestic-disturbance call.
- At arrival the decedent held two kitchen knives on a public street; parties dispute his distance, movements, and whether he posed an immediate threat when Sapp shot him twice. No evidence shows Sapp warned he would shoot if the decedent did not drop the knives.
- Plaintiffs are the decedent’s parents, three minor siblings, and the Estate; they also allege several other officers unlawfully seized and detained family members after the shooting.
- Plaintiffs seek damages for excessive force (Fourth Amendment), unlawful post-shooting seizures (Fourth Amendment) and Fourteenth Amendment due process, and state-law false arrest/false imprisonment.
- After briefing, the court denied summary judgment on Excessive Force (Count 4) and on the Fourth Amendment post-shooting seizure claims as to the City and other officers, finding genuine factual disputes for a jury.
- The court granted summary judgment for Defendants on Plaintiffs’ Fourteenth Amendment substantive and procedural due process claims, but found qualified immunity did not shield officers from the Fourth Amendment claims challenging the post-shooting detentions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Sapp’s use of deadly force was objectively reasonable (Excessive Force) | Sapp shot an unarmed-to-advance decedent who was not charging and held knives non-combatively; jury question on immediate threat | Sapp reasonably believed decedent advanced with knives and posed an immediate threat | Denied summary judgment — genuine dispute of material fact requires jury resolution |
| Whether post-shooting separation/detentions violated Fourth Amendment | Family was separated, prevented from leaving or consoling each other for hours, phones taken — was an unreasonable seizure without probable cause or reasonable suspicion | No arrest or restraints; Plaintiffs were not told they were detained; officers acted lawfully | Denied summary judgment — triable issues exist; qualified immunity not applicable on these Fourth Amendment claims |
| Whether Plaintiffs have a Fourteenth Amendment liberty interest claim (substantive/procedural due process) | Plaintiffs (parents and siblings) argue conscience-shocking conduct deprived them of familial interests | Defendants contend Fourth Amendment governs excessive-force and seizure claims; no Fourteenth claim viable for siblings | Granted for Defendants — Fourteenth Amendment due process claims dismissed (parents’ and siblings’ claims not cognizable here) |
| Whether Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity for the shootings/detentions | Plaintiffs: Fourth Amendment rights were clearly established; officers not entitled to immunity for excessive force or prolonged detentions | Defendants: officers reasonably believed actions lawful; qualified immunity applies | Qualified immunity denied for excessive force posture and post-shooting Fourth Amendment seizure claims; court analyzed immunity sua sponte and found triable issues preclude immunity |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment and genuine-issue standard)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (excessive force/Graham factors)
- Brosseau v. Haugen, 543 U.S. 194 (qualified immunity overview)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (qualified immunity two-step)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (qualified immunity policy)
- Wilkinson v. Torres, 610 F.3d 546 (9th Cir. on family liberty interests and due process in police shootings)
- Hayes v. County of San Diego, 736 F.3d 1223 (Graham factors; immediacy of threat, warnings/less-lethal alternatives)
- Nelson v. City of Davis, 685 F.3d 867 (denial of qualified immunity for excessive force)
- Boyd v. Benton County, 374 F.3d 773 (excessive force and fairness notice)
- Smith v. City of Hemet, 394 F.3d 689 (en banc Ninth Circuit on excessive force jury questions)
- California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621 (definition of seizure/arrest)