Michael Alvin Partlow v. Officer Joseph Stadler
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 24131
| 8th Cir. | 2014Background
- In the early morning, after drinking and expressing suicidal thoughts, Michael Partlow locked himself in his basement apartment holding a shotgun; his aunt Lisa told officers he was suicidal and had said, “You don’t want to see this.”
- Officers Mann, Stadler, Craig, and Trooper Beedy arrived; seconds after Partlow exited the building with the shotgun, officers shouted commands to drop the gun.
- Officers testified Partlow chambered a round and raised/aimed the shotgun toward them; they fired, wounding Partlow multiple times; Beedy did not fire but secured a live round in the chamber after the shooting.
- Partlow was criminally convicted of terrorizing with a special finding that he did not threaten imminent bodily injury; he then sued the officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for excessive force and state tort claims.
- The district court denied qualified immunity on summary judgment, finding disputed facts about whether Partlow threatened officers; the city and official-capacity claims were dismissed on summary judgment.
- The Eighth Circuit majority reversed, holding that, based on undisputed facts viewed in the officers’ position, their split-second use of deadly force was objectively reasonable and they are entitled to qualified immunity; Judge Bye dissented.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officers used excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment | Partlow argues he was turning to comply and setting down the shotgun when shot, so force was unnecessary and excessive | Officers argue they reasonably perceived an imminent threat because Partlow exited with a shotgun, had threatened suicide, and moved the gun in a manner they perceived as aiming at them | Court: Officers entitled to qualified immunity — their split-second decision was objectively reasonable given the circumstances |
| Whether qualified immunity review is appealable interlocutorily | Partlow: appeal presents only factual/evidentiary disputes so no appellate jurisdiction | Officers: the appeal raises legal question whether facts, viewed in plaintiff’s favor, show violation — reviewable under collateral-order doctrine | Court: Jurisdiction exists because the appeal turns on legal question of excessive-force reasonableness |
| Proper standard for excessive-force at summary judgment | Partlow: evidence creates factual disputes about perceived threat, feasibility of warning, and reasonableness that must go to a jury | Officers: apply Graham reasonableness from officer’s perspective; mistakes are permissible if objectively reasonable | Court: Applied Graham; concluded officers’ perception of imminent threat was objectively reasonable under the circumstances |
| Whether failure to warn negates reasonableness | Partlow: officers failed to give meaningful warning or identify themselves, making shooting unreasonable | Officers: warnings were given (commands to drop the gun) and circumstances (seconds, visible threat) made split-second force reasonable | Court: Rejected as dispositive — even without more warning, the officers’ belief of imminent danger justified force |
Key Cases Cited
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (qualified immunity standard)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (two-step qualified immunity inquiry)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (qualified immunity framework permitting flexible sequencing)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (Fourth Amendment excessive-force reasonableness standard)
- Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (deadly force permissible when suspect poses threat of serious physical harm)
- Loch v. City of Litchfield, 689 F.3d 961 (objectively reasonable mistakes do not violate Fourth Amendment)
- Bell v. Kansas City Police Dep’t, 635 F.3d 346 (distinguishing case where plaintiff had clearly complied and force was excessive)
- Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (collateral-order doctrine for appeals on qualified immunity)
- Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304 (limits on appellate review of factual disputes in qualified immunity denials)
- Doe v. Flaherty, 623 F.3d 577 (scope of interlocutory appeals on qualified immunity)
- Ngo v. Storlie, 495 F.3d 597 (failure to give feasible warning increases unreasonableness)
- Rohrbough v. Hall, 586 F.3d 582 (summary-judgment standard: view evidence in plaintiff’s favor)
- Nance v. Sammis, 586 F.3d 604 (prohibition on weighing credibility at summary judgment)