Salvatore Palma, Jr. v. Matthew Johns, 27 F.4th 419

On Feb. 8, 2017 Deputy Matthew Johns responded to a 9‑1‑1 call about an “unwanted person” (Vincent Palma) who had a mental‑health history and a domestic dispute over a TV remote.
Johns encountered Palma on the porch with his hands in his pockets; Palma did not comply with repeated commands to stop or show his hands.
Johns deployed a Taser three times (Palma fell after the second application, pulled out the probes, and at times appeared to walk toward or away from Johns), then unholstered his firearm and fired multiple rounds, killing Palma; Palma was unarmed.
Witness accounts conflict on key facts (where Palma was, whether he was advancing at the moment of shooting, how long he lay on the ground after tasings, and whether Palma lunged after initial shots); autopsy and expert opinion suggested some shots were fired while Palma was bent over or on the ground.
Plaintiffs sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (excessive force) and state tort law; the district court granted summary judgment for Defendants on qualified immunity grounds; the Sixth Circuit (majority) reversed and remanded.

Issue	Palma’s Argument	Johns’ Argument	Held
Excessive force for Taser uses	Tasing was gratuitous and excessive given Palma’s compliance failure alone and his mental condition	Tasing was reasonable because Palma ignored orders and advanced toward officer	Reversed summary judgment: disputed facts (effectiveness, positions, duration on ground) preclude immunity on taser claim
Excessive force for initial shootings	No probable cause to use deadly force: Palma was unarmed, silent, not physically threatening, known mentally ill, and at times not advancing	Deadly force reasonable because Palma repeatedly advanced toward officer, refused commands, and got within close distance	Reversed: genuine disputes about threat, distance, and conduct mean jury could find shooting unreasonable
Continued shooting (additional volleys)	Continued fire after Palma was incapacitated/ bent over was excessive	Continued fire reasonable because Palma lunged/ attempted to continue attack	Reversed: disputed material facts (movement, wound angles, expert opinion) preclude immunity on continued‑fire claim
Qualified immunity / clearly established law	Right not to be tased or shot absent reasonable belief of imminent serious harm was clearly established	Officer’s conduct was reasonable under precedent; no clearly established violation	Reversed: court concluded Palma’s Fourth Amendment rights re: gratuitous taser use and shooting were clearly established, so immunity not warranted at summary judgment

Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (objective‑reasonableness test for excessive force)
Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985) (deadly force permissible only if officer has probable cause to believe suspect poses imminent threat of serious physical harm)
Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (qualified immunity two‑step inquiry)
Mullenix v. Luna, 577 U.S. 7 (2015) (need for particularized clearly‑established precedent in excessive‑force cases)
White v. Pauly, 137 S. Ct. 548 (2017) (same: avoid 20/20 hindsight and require specific precedent)
Estate of Hill v. Miracle, 853 F.3d 306 (6th Cir. 2017) (framework for evaluating force in mental‑health emergencies)
Wright v. City of Euclid, 962 F.3d 852 (6th Cir. 2020) (taser limitations where subject not under arrest and not physically resisting)
Roell v. Hamilton Cnty., 870 F.3d 471 (6th Cir. 2017) (consideration of known mental‑illness in force analysis)
Goodwin v. City of Painesville, 781 F.3d 314 (6th Cir. 2015) (gratuitous or excessive taser use violates clearly established rights)
Bouggess v. Mattingly, 482 F.3d 886 (6th Cir. 2007) (officer’s mere hunch that suspect is armed is insufficient to justify deadly force)