Robin Thompson v. James"Clint" Murray
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 15568
8th Cir.2015Background
- Police in Morrilton, AR pursued a 1992 Chevy Corsica after a liquor-store theft report; Officers Dustin Caudell and James “Clint” Murray followed the vehicle driven by Jermell Thompson.
- Dashcam footage showed Thompson did not drive erratically; at a red light his car was boxed in by the cruisers and briefly backed up, then moved forward.
- Disputed facts: where Murray stood when the car moved, the car’s speed and direction, whether the car was moving toward Murray or around his cruiser, and whether Murray was in immediate danger.
- Murray fired multiple shots through the windshield and driver’s side window; Thompson died from gunshot wounds. Caudell also fired at the vehicle’s tires but missed.
- Plaintiff (Jermell’s mother and estate) sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for excessive force, and asserted supervisory and municipal claims; defendants moved for summary judgment including qualified immunity.
- The district court denied Murray qualified immunity (finding material factual disputes) and resolved some motions; Murray and Chief Gunderman appealed interlocutorily.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of qualified immunity to Murray is appealable | Thompson argued factual disputes precluded qualified immunity; denial proper. | Murray argued facts showed he reasonably believed deadly force necessary and entitlement to immunity as a matter of law. | Dismissed Murray’s interlocutory appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the denial turned on disputed facts, not pure legal questions. |
| Whether the district court likely assumed facts that preclude qualified immunity | Thompson contended disputed facts (slow speed, Murray positioned left/reasonably protected) supported denial. | Defendants urged the court assumed facts favorable to them (rapid acceleration toward Murray) that would support immunity. | Court inferred district court likely assumed facts favoring plaintiff (slow speed, Murray not in path), and those assumptions were not blatantly contradicted by the record. |
| Whether the appellate court can resolve factual-sufficiency disputes on interlocutory qualified-immunity appeal | Thompson: factual disputes control; appeals limited to legal issues. | Defendants: framed factual assertions as legal (clearly established right not violated under their factual framing). | Court reiterated it lacks jurisdiction to review evidence sufficiency or credibility; may only resolve abstract legal questions. |
| Whether Gunderman’s individual-capacity qualified immunity denial was appealable | Thompson: municipal ruling considered; individual-capacity claims against Gunderman not decided. | Gunderman appealed but district court did not rule on his individual-capacity qualified-immunity or enter a reviewable order. | Gunderman’s appeal dismissed for want of a reviewable order. |
Key Cases Cited
- Walton v. Dawson, 752 F.3d 1109 (8th Cir. 2014) (jurisdictional limits on interlocutory appeals of qualified-immunity denials)
- Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (U.S. 1985) (denial of qualified immunity immediately appealable to extent it turns on issue of law)
- Behrens v. Pelletier, 516 U.S. 299 (U.S. 1996) (scope of interlocutory appeal from qualified-immunity denial)
- Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304 (U.S. 1995) (appellate court cannot review sufficiency of evidence on interlocutory qualified-immunity appeal)
- Kovacic v. Villarreal, 628 F.3d 209 (5th Cir. 2010) (distinction between legal/material factual disputes and genuineness-of-fact disputes)
- Lockridge v. Bd. of Trs. of the Univ. of Ark., 315 F.3d 1005 (8th Cir. 2003) (drawing inferences in light most favorable to plaintiff when district court does not specify assumed facts)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (U.S. 2007) (record can blatantly contradict plaintiff’s version of events)
- Richmond v. City of Brooklyn Ctr., 490 F.3d 1002 (8th Cir. 2007) (qualified immunity framework)
- Capps v. Olson, 780 F.3d 879 (8th Cir. 2015) (deadly force against fleeing suspect permissible only when immediate and significant threat exists)
- Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1985) (Fourth Amendment limits on deadly force against fleeing felon)
- Brosseau v. Haugen, 543 U.S. 194 (U.S. 2004) (general standard can clearly establish right in obvious cases)
- Mahamed v. Anderson, 612 F.3d 1084 (8th Cir. 2010) (limitations on framing sufficiency arguments as pure legal questions)
- Kincade v. City of Blue Springs, 64 F.3d 389 (8th Cir. 1995) (pendent appellate jurisdiction and when unappealable decisions are inextricably intertwined with appealable ones)