Rodriguez v. Passinault
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 6206
6th Cir.2011Background
- This case arises from a 2003 incident where Murray, fleeing after a parole violation, was shot by Deputy Passinault and died; Rodriguez, an eyewitness, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for excessive force under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.
- The district court granted summary judgment to Passinault, finding no seizure and qualified immunity.
- Murray-Ruhl v. Passinault (companion case) previously upheld questions of fact about reasonableness of Passinault's use of force against Murray.
- Rodriguez re-filed after the Murray-Ruhl mandate; the district court treated her case as timely for summary judgment purposes.
- The court applied Brower-based analyses and debated whether an unknown passenger could be seized when a vehicle is shot at to stop it; key factual disputes remained about whether a seizure occurred and whether force was reasonable.
- The Sixth Circuit reversed, holding that Fisher controls and that material facts about seizure and reasonableness remained for trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rodriguez was seized under the Fourth Amendment. | Rodriguez was inside Murray's vehicle and observed the shooting. | Seizure requires intentional restraint; Rodriguez was not known to be inside the vehicle. | Issue for trial; seizure question remains material. |
| Whether Fisher governs and supports a seizure finding in this moving-vehicle shooting. | Fisher supports seizure whenever officers shoot at a moving car to stop it, affecting all occupants. | Troupe should control; unknown passenger not seized. | Fisher controls; seizure exists if the shot stops the vehicle with occupants inside. |
| Whether Passinault is entitled to qualified immunity given disputed facts about reasonableness. | Genuine disputes over timing and purpose of shots render immunity inappropriate. | Reasonableness could be viewed as objectively reasonable under the circumstances. | Summary judgment on immunity reversed; facts must be resolved by trier of fact. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brower v. County of Inyo, 489 U.S. 593 (1989) (seizure requires intentional governmental action to restrain movement)
- Fisher v. City of Memphis, 234 F.3d 312 (6th Cir.2000) (shooting at moving vehicle can seize occupants; Fourth Amendment analysis applies)
- Troupe v. Sarasota Cnty., Florida, 419 F.3d 1160 (11th Cir.2005) (seizure of unknown passengers not clearly established; weigh facts)
- Scott v. Clay County, Tenn., 205 F.3d 867 (6th Cir.2000) (analysis of seizure when officer shoots at moving vehicle; unknown passenger issue noted)
- Murray-Ruhl v. Passinault, 246 Fed.Appx. 338 (6th Cir.2007) (panel found genuine disputes on reasonableness; reversed on immunity question)