929 F.3d 562
8th Cir.2019Background
- On Oct. 17, 2016, 17‑year‑old Keagan Schweikle, reportedly suicidal and possibly intoxicated, walked into the woods with a gun; his mother called 911 saying he intended self‑harm and would not hurt others.
- Officer Kyle Ellison found Keagan standing about 45 feet away on a riverbank, ordered him to show his hands, saw a gun in Keagan’s right hand, and commanded him to drop it.
- Keagan turned slightly, raised the gun to his right temple, then — according to the complaint — began to move the gun away from his head without speaking; he never pointed the gun at officers.
- Ellison fired three shots as Keagan began to move the gun; two shots killed Keagan.
- Keagan’s parents sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for excessive force and deprivation of familial relationship, plus Monell and state‑law claims; the district court granted judgment on the pleadings and qualified immunity to the officers and declined supplemental jurisdiction over state claims.
- The Eighth Circuit reversed in part (excessive‑force and related Monell claims), affirmed in part (familial‑relationship due process claims), and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Partridge/Schweikle's Argument | Ellison/Defendants' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ellison used constitutionally excessive force (Fourth Amendment) | Shooting was unreasonable because Keagan was non‑resisting, not fleeing, and was moving the gun to comply with commands | Shooting was reasonable because officer could not tell whether Keagan was moving to comply or to aim at officers; deadly force justified if officer reasonably believed an immediate threat existed | Reversed: drawing all reasonable inferences for plaintiffs, court held factual allegations could show no immediate threat and excessive force; qualified immunity denied at pleadings stage |
| Whether the right was clearly established in Oct. 2016 | Precedent made it clear officers may not shoot a non‑threatening, compliant person even if armed | Argued reasonable officers could believe shooting lawful under circumstances | Held clearly established: law made it unreasonable to shoot a person complying and not posing immediate threat |
| Municipal liability (Monell) tied to underlying § 1983 claim | Monell claims valid if individual liability stands | Monell claims fail absent underlying constitutional violation | Reversed dismissal of Monell claims because individual excessive‑force claim survives pleading stage |
| Parents’ Fourteenth Amendment familial‑relationship claim | Parents contend killing of a minor deprived them of fundamental right to raise child | Defendants argued plaintiffs failed to allege intentional targeting of family relationship | Affirmed dismissal: plaintiffs did not allege conduct was intentionally directed at interfering with parent‑child relationship; due‑process claim requires such intent |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. al‑Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (qualified immunity standards)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (qualified immunity framework)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (objective‑reasonableness Fourth Amendment test)
- Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (limits on deadly force against nonthreatening fleeing suspects)
- Kisela v. Hughes, 138 S. Ct. 1148 (reasonableness judged from officer’s perspective)
- District of Columbia v. Wesby, 138 S. Ct. 577 (clearly established law standard)
- Partlow v. Stadler, 774 F.3d 497 (Eighth Circuit summary‑judgment excessive‑force precedent distinguishing aiming/menacing movement)
- Henderson v. City of Woodbury, 909 F.3d 933 (shot suspect after surrender; supports clearly established rule)
- Wealot v. Brooks, 865 F.3d 1119 (excessive‑force when suspect attempting to surrender)
- Craighead v. Lee, 399 F.3d 954 (denying qualified immunity where suspect held gun overhead and posed threat)