Steven Petersen v. Lewis County
663 F. App'x 531
| 9th Cir. | 2016Background
- Steven Petersen sued Lewis County and Officer Matthew McKnight under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 after McKnight shot Petersen’s son; case appealed from W.D. Wash. following summary judgment for defendants.
- District court granted qualified immunity to McKnight on the federal excessive-force claim and granted summary judgment to the County on municipal-liability, substantive due process, and certain state-law claims; it also granted summary judgment to McKnight on state-law negligence and to the County on vicarious liability and failure-to-train/supervise claims.
- On appeal, the Ninth Circuit reviewed de novo and found genuine factual disputes about the reasonableness of McKnight’s actions for the excessive-force claim (viewing facts in plaintiff’s favor).
- The Ninth Circuit held that, even assuming a lawful Terry stop, McKnight lacked probable cause to use deadly force and thus violated clearly established law, so qualified immunity on the § 1983 excessive-force claim was improper.
- The court affirmed summary judgment for the County on municipal liability and on § 1983 substantive due process grounds, finding no evidence that County policy or training was the moving force or that actions shocked the conscience.
- The court reversed summary judgment on state-law negligence and the County’s vicarious-liability claim because reasonableness of McKnight’s conduct is a jury question; affirmed summary judgment for County on negligent training/supervision where employee acted within scope of employment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Qualified immunity for excessive force (§ 1983) | McKnight used deadly force without probable cause; violated clearly established Fourth Amendment rights | McKnight acted reasonably; entitled to qualified immunity | Reversed as to McKnight: factual disputes exist and deadly force lacked probable cause; qualified immunity improper |
| Municipal liability (Monell) | County policies/training caused the shooting | County policies/training were not the moving force; no deliberate indifference | Affirmed for County: plaintiff failed to show policy or training was moving force or deliberate indifference |
| Substantive due process | McKnight’s conduct violated substantive due process | Conduct did not "shock the conscience" | Affirmed for defendants: plaintiff failed to meet shock-the-conscience standard |
| State-law negligence and vicarious liability | McKnight was negligent; County vicariously liable | Public-duty doctrine and immunity bars; summary judgment proper | Reversed as to McKnight and County on negligence and vicarious liability: reasonableness is a jury issue; public-duty doctrine does not bar claim |
| Negligent training/supervision (state law) | County failed to train/supervise McKnight properly | County argued employee acted within scope and no basis for negligent supervision claim | Affirmed for County: no indication McKnight acted outside scope; negligent training/supervision claim improper |
Key Cases Cited
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (Fourth Amendment stop-and-frisk standard)
- Blanford v. Sacramento County, 406 F.3d 1110 (9th Cir.) (deadly force requires probable cause to believe serious threat exists)
- Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (deadly-force standard limiting seizure by force)
- Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (municipal liability requires policy or custom as moving force)
- Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S. 51 (municipal deliberate indifference standard for training claims)
- City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378 (municipal failure-to-train liability framework)
- County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833 (substantive due process "shock the conscience" standard)