506 F. App'x 751
10th Cir.2012Background
- Garrett, a Broken Arrow police officer, shot and killed Nathan Samuel after responding to a domestic violence call.
- Ruth Samuel, Nathan’s wife, sued Garrett and the City under §1983 and Oklahoma tort claims.
- District court granted summary judgment to Garrett and the City on all claims.
- The district court held no Fourth Amendment violation or qualified immunity for Garrett.
- Samuel challenged the district court’s rulings on qualified immunity, training liability, and governmental immunity.
- Court reviews summary-judgment de novo and in the light most favorable to Samuel as the nonmoving party.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Garrett’s use of force violated the Fourth Amendment. | Samuel alleges improper use of force. | Garrett acted reasonably given threat perceptions. | Garrett entitled to qualified immunity; no clearly established violation. |
| Whether the City is liable for failure to train under §1983 and state law. | City failed to adequately train on use-of-force scenarios. | Training was extensive and not deliberately indifferent; expert report insufficient. | Summary judgment for City; no triable issue on deliberate indifference. |
| Whether the City enjoys immunity under the Oklahoma Tort Claims Act for Garrett’s actions. | City liable under state tort theories for negligence. | Actions were protective, not law-enforcement, under §155(6) immunity. | City immune under §155(6) for protective functions; no tort liability. |
Key Cases Cited
- Walker v. City of Orem, 451 F.3d 1139 (10th Cir. 2006) (deadly force justified by probable threat; factors for threat assessment)
- Estate of Larsen ex rel. Sturdivan v. Murr, 511 F.3d 1255 (10th Cir. 2008) (likelihood of threat and distance considered in deadly force analysis)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (U.S. 1989) (excessive force inquiry includes reasonable officer’s split-second judgments)
- Klen v. City of Loveland, 661 F.3d 498 (10th Cir. 2011) (clearly established law required; context-specific inquiry)
- Thomson v. Salt Lake Cnty., 584 F.3d 1304 (10th Cir. 2009) (warning prior to deadly force feasible; orders may suffice)
- Carr v. Castle, 337 F.3d 1221 (10th Cir. 2003) (deliberate indifference prong in failure-to-train claim)
- Salazar v. City of Okla. City, 976 P.2d 1056 (Okla. 1999) (immunity under §155(6) for protective police actions)
- Schmidt v. Grady Cnty., 943 P.2d 595 (Okla. 1997) (protective functions immune under §155(6))
- Morales v. City of Okla. City ex rel. Okla. City Police Dep’t, 230 P.3d 869 (Okla. 2010) (distinguishing protective vs. law-enforcement actions)