Sharese M. Wells v. Cullen Talton
695 F. App'x 439
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- On Jan. 24, 2011 Deputy Steven Glidden responded to an in-progress residential burglary report and encountered Robert Chambers in a wooded area near the burglarized home; Chambers had his hands in his pockets and a hood up.
- Glidden commanded Chambers to show his hands; Chambers complied only by tilting his head back, kept his hands in pockets, walked toward Glidden, and—when within inches—Glidden saw the butt of a pistol as Chambers began to pull his left hand from his pocket.
- A physical struggle ensued; Glidden grabbed Chambers, tased (unsuccessfully), dropped the taser, lost control as Chambers freed himself, and Chambers fled toward a nearby neighborhood.
- Glidden, believing Chambers still had the gun and posed a threat to deputies and residents, fired one shot without issuing a verbal stop command, killing Chambers; later investigators recovered a .45 pistol whose serial number matched the gun reported stolen from the burglarized house, found about five feet from Chambers’ jacket.
- Wells (Chambers’ administrator) sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (excessive/deadly force—Fourth/Fourteenth Amendments) and state wrongful death law; the district court granted summary judgment for defendants (qualified immunity and official immunity) and denied Wells’ Rule 59(e)/60(b) relief; the Eleventh Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Glidden’s use of deadly force violated the Fourth Amendment (qualified immunity) | Wells: Glidden’s shooting of an unarmed Chambers was unreasonable and violated clearly established rights | Glidden: He reasonably believed Chambers was the burglar, armed with the stolen .45, and posed an imminent threat when fleeing | Affirmed: viewing plaintiff’s version of facts, a reasonable officer could have believed deadly force was necessary; qualified immunity applies |
| Whether district court abused discretion denying Rule 59(e) motion (newly discovered evidence) | Wells: affidavits/photos show planted evidence, tampering, and alternative timelines constituting newly discovered evidence | Defs: evidence was available before judgment or not genuinely new/contradictory | Affirmed: evidence was not newly discovered or was available earlier; denial not an abuse of discretion |
| Whether district court abused discretion denying Rule 60(b) relief | Wells: changed narrative/evidence now makes enforcement inequitable; alleges tampering and credibility problems | Defs: same evidence was available earlier; need for finality; heavy burden for 60(b) relief | Affirmed: Wells failed to show extraordinary circumstances; denial not an abuse of discretion |
| Whether state-law wrongful death claim survives summary judgment | Wells: shooting was negligent or done with malice/intent | Glidden: acted reasonably to prevent death/serious harm; no evidence of negligence or actual malice | Affirmed: plaintiff failed to raise genuine issue that Glidden acted negligently or with malice; summary judgment proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (establishes objective qualified immunity standard)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (use-of-force claims analyzed under Fourth Amendment reasonableness)
- Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (conditions for deadly force: probable cause of serious harm, necessity to prevent escape, warning if feasible)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (two-part qualified immunity inquiry and discretion to decide order of prongs)
- Tolan v. Cotton, 572 U.S. 650 (at summary judgment courts must view disputed facts in plaintiff’s favor)
- Vaughan v. Cox, 343 F.3d 1323 (Eleventh Circuit discussion of deadly-force conditions under Garner)
- Penley v. Eslinger, 605 F.3d 843 (officer’s reasonable belief about a weapon can support immunity even if mistaken)
- Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730 (clarifies requirement that law be clearly established to deny qualified immunity)