Rogers Vann v. City of Southaven, 884 F.3d 307

Jeremy W. Vann was shot and killed by Southaven police during a small-scale drug sting in a retail parking lot; officers Jeff Logan and Jordan Jones fired on Vann.
During the encounter, Logan was knocked to the ground by Vann’s car; Jones then shot Vann as the car approached Logan a second time.
Vann’s representative sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violation of the Fourth Amendment (unreasonable seizure/excessive and deadly force) against the two officers and the City of Southaven, alleging failure to train and unconstitutional custom.
Officers and the City moved for summary judgment on qualified immunity and municipal liability grounds; the district court granted summary judgment for defendants.
On appeal, the panel reviewed de novo, construing facts in favor of the nonmoving party and applying the plaintiff’s burden to show clearly established law to overcome qualified immunity.
The Fifth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the officers (Jones and Logan) and the City, finding (1) Jones’s force was not contrary to clearly established law under the circumstances, and (2) the plaintiff failed to identify controlling precedent to defeat Logan’s qualified immunity; municipal-liability analysis was likewise affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Jones’s use of deadly force violated clearly established Fourth Amendment law	Jones shot Vann unlawfully when Vann’s car posed no lawful threat	Jones acted reasonably when he shot as Vann’s car approached Logan a second time after Logan was knocked down	Jones entitled to qualified immunity; force not contrary to clearly established law
Whether Logan is entitled to qualified immunity for his shooting	Logan used excessive/deadly force in circumstances that violated the Fourth Amendment	No clearly established precedent put Logan on notice that his conduct was unlawful	Qualified immunity granted because plaintiff failed to identify controlling precedent
Whether City of Southaven is liable under § 1983 for failure to train or an unconstitutional custom	City’s training/custom permitted constitutional violations by officers	City argued no municipal policy or training that caused constitutional violation	District court’s dismissal of municipal claims affirmed by Fifth Circuit
Whether summary judgment was appropriate under qualified immunity standards	Fact disputes and inference-drawing favor plaintiff preclude summary judgment	Qualified immunity shifts burden to plaintiff to show genuine issue of material fact and clearly established law	Summary judgment affirmed; plaintiff did not meet burden to rebut qualified immunity

Hanks v. Rogers, 853 F.3d 738 (5th Cir. 2017) (standard of review and burden-shifting for qualified immunity on summary judgment)
Griggs v. Brewer, 841 F.3d 308 (5th Cir. 2016) (summary judgment standards and inference-drawing in qualified-immunity cases)
McClendon v. City of Columbia, 305 F.3d 314 (5th Cir. 2002) (en banc) (summary judgment standard)
Tolan v. Cotton, 134 S. Ct. 1861 (U.S. 2014) (importance of viewing facts in light most favorable to nonmovant in qualified-immunity contexts)
Cass v. City of Abilene, 814 F.3d 721 (5th Cir. 2016) (plaintiff must identify precedent placing constitutional question beyond debate; no high-level generality)
Brown v. Callahan, 623 F.3d 249 (5th Cir. 2010) (plaintiff’s burden to rebut qualified immunity defense)