Rush v. City of Lansing, 644 F. App'x 415

Rush sued Officer Rendon and the City of Lansing under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for excessive force after Derrinesha Clay, a seventeen-year-old, was killed in a bank storage room while armed with a knife.
Officers found Clay secluded in a storage closet; she was very small (about 5'4", 125 lbs) and “frantic” while waving scissors.
Clay produced a serrated steak knife after scissors were taken; she slashed at Rendon from about an arm’s length away.
Rendon fired two shots, first into Clay’s stomach and then into her head, with the second shot occurring very close in time to the first.
There were conflicting accounts of Clay’s motion after the first shot, but all officers testified the two shots were in quick succession.
The district court denied Rendon’s summary-judgment motion on the § 1983 claim; Rush appealed.
The court ultimately held the second shot was not objectively unreasonable and upheld qualified immunity for Rendon.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Rendon’s second shot of Clay violated the Fourth Amendment.	Rush contends Clay still posed a serious threat after the first shot.	Rendon argues the threat persisted, justifying the second shot given the rapidly evolving danger.	Not violated; second shot not objectively unreasonable under the circumstances.
Whether the time between the first and second shots precludes a finding of reasonableness.	Rush emphasizes any delay undermines immediate threat.	Rendon maintains the shots occurred in quick succession, supporting reasonableness.	Time between shots was short enough for reasonable officials to act; second shot upheld.
Whether the right was clearly established to deny qualified immunity for the second shot.	Rush argues right to be free from excessive force was clearly established under these facts.	No controlling authority clearly established that this precise situation violated the right.	Not clearly established; Rendon entitled to qualified immunity.

Mullins v. Cyranek, 805 F.3d 760 (6th Cir. 2015) (two shots in seconds after a threat can be reasonable and immunized)
Mullenix v. Luna, 136 S. Ct. 305 (S. Ct. 2015) (highly fact-specific inquiry; cannot rely on general rules)
Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (U.S. 2009) (two-step analysis of qualified immunity)
Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (S. Ct. 2007) (clarifies when to rely on factual record on appeal)
Bouggess v. Mattingly, 482 F.3d 886 (6th Cir. 2007) (assessing threat and use of force; deadly force not justified without danger)
Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (U.S. 1989) (objective reasonableness standard for excessive force)
Brosseau v. Haugen, 543 U.S. 194 (U.S. 2004) (rejects overly general rules for deadly force)