Melinda Thompson v. City of Lebanon
831 F.3d 366
6th Cir.2016Background
- April 28, 2010: Gregory Thompson crashed his car after a high-speed pursuit; he remained in the driver’s seat and may have been unconscious.
- Officer McKinley ran to Thompson’s car with a firearm and fired one round; Officer McDannald then fired thirteen rounds. The shooting lasted ~19 seconds.
- Thompson died from gunshot wounds. Plaintiff (estate administrator Melinda Thompson) sued officers, supervisors, and the City under § 1983 and Tennessee law for excessive force and related municipal liability.
- District court denied summary judgment to Officers McKinley and McDannald on qualified immunity, finding genuine factual disputes (e.g., whether McKinley intended to shoot and whether Thompson posed a continuing risk). Supervisors were granted immunity; City’s summary judgment denied.
- Officers appealed interlocutorily; Sixth Circuit limited its review to legal questions that can be resolved on the plaintiff’s version of disputed facts and affirmed denial of qualified immunity as to the two officers. The court dismissed the City’s pendent appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether McKinley’s conduct amounted to a Fourth Amendment "seizure" | McKinley’s intentional shot was a show of authority that contributed to Thompson’s restraint | McKinley’s shot was accidental and thus not a seizure | Court (applying Floyd) held — accepting plaintiff’s version — McKinley’s shot can constitute a seizure; affirmed denial of immunity |
| Whether McKinley’s use of force was objectively unreasonable / clearly established | Shooting an apparently nonthreatening, stationary person was unreasonable and contrary to clearly established law | Shot was accidental or justified; in any event, no clearly established violation | Court held — on plaintiff’s facts, McKinley’s intentional shooting was objectively unreasonable and clearly established; affirmed denial |
| Whether McDannald’s use of force (13 rounds) was objectively unreasonable / clearly established | Firing many rounds into a nonthreatening person violated clearly established Fourth Amendment rights | Shooting was justified by perceived threat during pursuit | Court held — on plaintiff’s facts, firing thirteen rounds could be objectively unreasonable and clearly established; affirmed denial |
| Whether the appellate court had jurisdiction to review factual-evidence challenges | N/A (plaintiff opposed jurisdiction over defendants’ evidence-based challenges) | Defendants argued sufficiency of evidence (accident, lack of submission) and sought review | Court held it lacked jurisdiction to review pure evidence-sufficiency/fact disputes, but could decide discrete legal questions based on plaintiff’s version of facts; affirmed in part and dismissed City’s pendent appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (government officials entitled to qualified immunity absent violation of clearly established right)
- Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (denial of qualified immunity is interlocutory appealable to extent it turns on legal issues)
- Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304 (no interlocutory jurisdiction over appeals that challenge evidence sufficiency/factual disputes)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (appeals allowed when district court’s factual finding is blatantly contradicted by record)
- Plumhoff v. Rickard, 572 U.S. 765 (discussing scope of interlocutory review and Scott exception)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (objective-reasonableness standard for excessive-force claims)
- Floyd v. City of Detroit, 518 F.3d 398 (6th Cir.) (firing at suspect can be a seizure via show of authority that contributes to restraint)